Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Court-Based Drug Workers

Linda Perham: What supporthis Department provides for court-based drug workers.

Bob Ainsworth: All police forces in England and Wales have arrest referral schemes, some of which include court-based schemes. We are providing up to £6 million in matched funding for the police towards the costs.
	The Government's new comprehensive programme of criminal justice interventions, which was outlined in the updated drug strategy, includes the enhancement of existing arrest referral schemes. Police forces and drug action teams will be encouraged to extend coverage to the courts as well as to custody suites. Funding to support that will be announced shortly.

Linda Perham: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that Redbridge magistrates court was the first London court to appoint a court-based drug worker? He has engaged with 150 offenders in each of the last three years and has seen more than half of them move into detox, rehab or treatment. Funding for the scheme also comes from the Redbridge drug action team. Can my hon. Friend assure us that such initiatives will be continued to help break the link between drugs and crime?

Bob Ainsworth: We intend not only to continue but to enhance such schemes and improve their ability to get offenders into drug treatment. That approach is in marked contrast to that of the Conservatives, who would not go ahead with those enhancements but would instead spend the money on residential rehabilitation, whether or not it was appropriate.

Bob Spink: Is the Minister aware of the strong link between drugs and the use of alcohol on the streets by under-age persons? Why, therefore, did the Government last year remove the power of the police to take unopened bottles and cans of alcohol away from young people on the streets? When will the Government perform a humiliating climbdown and reverse that change so that the police can once again have that power?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too wide of the question before us.

Lindsay Hoyle: My hon. Friend the Minister made a positive statement, but where drug action teams are in place, could we remove frustration by ensuring that there will be more detox centres and that when people appear before the courts they go straight into such centres? There would thus be less crime on the streets.

Bob Ainsworth: Dealing with drug addiction is not straightforward. Different treatments are provided for different people in different circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that that should continue. Detox is appropriate immediately for some people, but only after a period of time for others. One needs to establish contact with people and to settle them, if they are especially chaotic, before even moving towards detoxification. Getting people into treatment in the first place has a dramatic effect on the rates of crime committed by drug addicts.

Nick Hawkins: But does the Minister not recognise that there is a huge difference between Ministers' rhetoric about this matter and the reality of what happens on the ground? As his hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and others, including the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) in his earlier question, have stressed, there needs to be not only contact between addicts and drug workers or treatment centres but intensive rehabilitation.
	The Government's problem is that they are sending all the wrong signals. Drug-addicted burglars are being told that they will not be sent to prison, and drug addicts with a serious problem who are responsible for such crimes are not being given the rehabilitation that they need. The Government's policy is failing, yet all the Minister has said today is "jam tomorrow"—too little, too late.

Bob Ainsworth: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will challenge the fact that drug treatment has been growing at about 8 per cent. a year. It is not merely a case of throwing money at the problem; we have to train people and give them skills because they simply do not exist. Why not? I suggest that it is, to some extent, because the Conservatives wholly ignored the problem for so long. We had to bring in the first drug strategy—in 1998. Our enhancements will improve it. We are building on the work that has already been done in order to tackle a very real problem. There are no simplistic solutions, such as getting a few people into residential rehabilitation and abandoning the rest, as the Conservatives, in effect, suggest.

Police (Sussex)

Nigel Waterson: What proposals he has to increase police numbers in Sussex.

Hilary Benn: The Sussex police force was allocated 206 recruits from the crime fighting fund for the three years to March 2003.
	The provisional grant settlement for 2003–04 provides Sussex with an additional £90,000 from the crime fighting fund for further additional officers. We estimate that that will allow an increase of up to a further 16 officers by the end of 2003–04.

Nigel Waterson: Is the Minister aware that those figures are dwarfed by the £9.6 million loss that the Sussex police authority calculates will arise from the grant distribution changes? Is he also aware that the chief constable of Sussex has made it clear that even the modest of target of getting back to the number of police officers in Sussex in 1997 is being jeopardised by the Government's policies? Why are the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other?

Hilary Benn: I do not accept that that is the case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that the total force strength in Sussex is 4,400 officers and support staff, compared with 3,935 in 1992—the year in which the hon. Gentleman was first elected to the House. That is an increase of 12 per cent. This year, in line with all authorities, the force is getting a budget increase of 3 per cent. plus an additional £5.86 million from the crimefighting fund, £90,000 for new recruits, £550,000 for policing rural areas, £180,000 for community support officers and £735,000 to help with the cost of recruitment.

Nigel Waterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That answer was so unsatisfactory that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Because of that point of order, I must go on to the next Question.

Refugee Resettlement

Laura Moffatt: If he will make a statement on his plans to develop a refugee resettlement programme with the UNHCR.

David Blunkett: From the spring, we will begin a new programme, organised with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which will screen applicants for asylum in regions of the world where people are experiencing the threat of death or torture. We will initially take 500 refugees, rising to a larger number as we develop the programme—thereby preventing people having to present through the use of smugglers, traffickers and organised criminals.

Laura Moffatt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present system allows those with some money in refugee camps to take advantage of smugglers and ignores the fact that people with no money are left in desperate situations? Does he further agree that it is wrong to cause disturbances in our communities and constituencies by linking terrorism with such programmes, attacking the Government and jumping on the bandwagon—which creates an enormous problem in all our communities?

David Blunkett: I well understand the genuine worries and concerns that exist in many communities with regard to the terrorist threat, together with the concerns raised in the media about whether our screening process for persons entering this country—whether or not they are asylum seekers—is adequate. Screening people outside this country through the new UN programme and the moving of border controls from the Kent coast to France—and to Belgium and Holland in future—will secure our borders, protect our population and, I hope, assist in meeting genuine concerns while damping down the danger of the asylum issue being whipped up—which can do no good to race relations in this country.

Simon Hughes: Does the Home Secretary agree that as we honour our international obligations to accept and deal with asylum seekers, paradoxically it is easier to deal with any who might be concerned with terrorism because of our right to refuse people with that background entry into this country—and to send them out of the country if they are a threat to national security under the Geneva convention and the treaties? To make sure that we continue to generate more light than heat, as I know the Home Secretary wants to do, will he look again at the proposal that I and others have made for a European refugee agency, to take decisions independently of government but most importantly, to make sure that responsibility is shared across the European Union in a proportionately fair manner for the refugees that come to us?

David Blunkett: I am concerned to have a system that works, and the establishment of a European agency may not be the right way of achieving one. However, I am totally committed to European co-operation, burden sharing and a system that makes like-for-like comparisons. I am particularly keen to develop, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, a system outside this country—such as the new UN programme and border and security controls on the French, Belgian and Dutch coasts—that prevents traffickers getting people into this country and precludes persons from claiming asylum once they have reached our shores. However, it behoves us all to remember the difficulty that both Houses encountered in getting through new measures that allow us to turn around and remove from the country persons with a clearly unfounded claim. I hope that anyone who raised objections in whatever form to sending people back to their country of origin will not in this House or in what they write and speak about publicly commit the sin of having said one thing when we were legislating and quite another on the back of media campaigns.

Derek Wyatt: On refugees, will my right hon. Friend undertake a root and branch investigation into how the Coniston hotel in my constituency was selected by the National Asylum Support Service as a reception centre, not least given that it was only acquired today but is due to open next Monday?

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration has made it clear today that the procedure and process by which this matter was handled was unsatisfactory and that she has undertaken immediately to put in place a review. She is examining the contractual arrangements and why the letter sent by the local authority chief executive on 3 October last was not replied to. All those matters display an incompetence about which our Administration are doing something, as I have explained in the House before, but, with the new director general of the immigration and nationality directorate, we require a step change in the way that that directorate relates to local communities, responds to local Members of Parliament and displays its competence in dealing with these sensitive issues.

Sydney Chapman: As the Government are to admit refugees under the new United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees gateway system—I have absolutely no objection to that—will the Home Secretary ensure that no refugee should come from any of the 44 countries of the Council of Europe? I say that for the simple reason that those countries subscribe to the European Court of Human Rights and, if they transgress any human right, the Government ought to take that up, through the ECHR, with the country concerned.

David Blunkett: We took the power in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to ensure that we could list the countries that we believe to be safe. Initially, for those seeking access to the European Union from next year, I am prepared to widen that list, and I hope that I will have the support of whole House in doing so. I am deeply mindful of those who have signed up to the European convention on human rights being committed to human rights and being prepared to display their own commitment to them. I want to make it clear, however, that no EU country has derogated or withdrawn from article 3, because none could, nor has any country denounced the ECHR by leaving it altogether, and those newspapers and those reporters and commentators who have suggested otherwise are simply wrong.

Jim Marshall: The whole House hears what the Home Secretary has to say about refugees and asylum seekers—many of us would share those sentiments—but what hope can he give to those asylum seekers in this country who will now find themselves destitute as a consequence of the implementation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002?

David Blunkett: My suggestion would be that people in those circumstances have completely failed in their claim, or failed to claim when they first entered the country. In both cases, they have a choice of leaving the country and going back home. If they had been refugees with an immediate and overriding asylum claim, if they had not got an income or other support or if they had not entered the country on an alternative visa or visitor pass, of course they would be dealt with entirely differently, but those who have sustained themselves in another fashion and treated the asylum process as a social security benefits system will get short shrift.

Oliver Letwin: In the light of the Home Secretary's important and rational responses this afternoon, does he now accept what he seemed reluctant to accept a few days ago—that it is legitimate to raise the links between the terrorist threat and the deficiencies in our immigration and asylum system?

David Blunkett: It is legitimate for people to raise the issue of the screening of those who come into this country and are resident in this country. Therefore, it is right to ensure that the warning index, which flags up the dangers in relation to particular individuals coming in, is strengthened. The other measures—the co-ordinator who started work last Monday on the range of border control services, the shifting of the border to France for immigration and security, and the introduction of technology both at those new borders and at our ports and airports to enable us to screen those coming in—are also right. What is not right is for people constantly to imply, sometimes behind their hands, that there is a major problem with asylum seekers as opposed to a major problem with those who threaten life and limb. Screening all those who pose a potential danger is therefore the issue with which we are dealing. Anyone who pretends that we can find a simple and easy answer, any more than other countries have done, not only deludes themselves and those around them but unnecessarily whips up scares that can do no good in terms of our security measures and every harm to our community and race relations, which are often fragile and could easily tip over into a situation that we could not control.

Oliver Letwin: I think I take that as a modified yes. Does the Home Secretary therefore also accept that it may be time to consider in a calm and rational fashion whether the UK should build on his idea of a UNHCR resettlement programme, which we welcome, and adopt a radically different approach to the handling of the whole refugee question?

David Blunkett: The purpose of the whole Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was fought through with considerable difficulty here and in another place, demonstrated that we wanted an end-to-end change in our approach. That is the reason for the change to the French, Belgian and Dutch borders, the setting up of induction and screening centres, the reporting facility, the new ID cards for asylum seekers, the change to the work permit visa system to allow people to come here to work legitimately and to be welcomed in doing so, and the increased screening to which I have referred for all those coming into the country. Until we have an entitlement or ID card for all those in our country we will not have a robust way of determining true identity or right to work. I hope that the House and my colleagues will be prepared to debate that in the months ahead.

Karen Buck: My right hon. Friend is aware that refugees from Iraq form the largest proportion of asylum seekers in this country. As someone whose constituency has a large Iraqi population, I can tell him that security checks on a number of those applicants take at least a year and are extremely rigorous. Will he assure me that at the same time as cracking down on the minority who abuse the asylum system, he will send a strong message to the community that the vast majority of asylum seekers from Iraq are fleeing terror, not seeking to propagate it?

David Blunkett: Yes, I will. I hope that it takes much less than a year to conduct screening, particularly of those who are on the warning index, which should be done immediately. I take the point in terms of thorough vetting, which is a prolonged and time-consuming process, and cannot just be dismissed by easy, glib headlines about what should and should not be done. I appeal to people—including those who write in our newspapers whose family arrived in this country fleeing persecution because of the open door that we had available at the time, and who have their well-being and freedom as a result—to pause before denying that right to others today.

Rural Policing Fund

Elfyn Llwyd: How many representations he has received on the allocation of rural funding to police forces in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

John Denham: We received many responses to our consultation on the police funding formula last summer. As a result of that consultation, we decided to retain the rural policing fund, from which police authorities in sparsely populated areas will share £30 million. I have received three representations since we announced that decision.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does not the standstill budget allocated to semi-rural police forces such as that in north Wales ignore the current inflation rate and the fact that there is likely to be a huge increase in fuel costs before long? Along with the hike in insurance premiums recently, that means a real cut in funding. Will he reconsider the budget as it is creating difficulties for semi-rural police forces?

John Denham: There is not a standstill budget in north Wales or anywhere else. There was a 4.6 per cent. increase in funding in north Wales through the police grant, and that is well ahead of inflation and ahead of the average for England and Wales as a whole. The hon. Gentleman's constituency has 137 more police officers today than it did in 1997.

Graham Allen: In the context of the Nottinghamshire police force, will my right hon. Friend take this first opportunity to associate himself with the views of Nottinghamshire Members of Parliament from all parties who have expressed their grief and, indeed, anger at the death on duty of a serving officer, PC Ged Walker, last week? It is a matter of great concern to members of the public and to people of all political persuasions in Nottinghamshire that this should be the last incident of this sort. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take this opportunity to put his views on the record.

John Denham: I am very pleased to join my hon. Friend and all Nottinghamshire Members of Parliament in paying tribute to PC Ged Walker, who was killed as a result of the serious head injuries sustained while being dragged along by a stolen car. His death underlines yet again the difficult and dangerous job that we ask our police officers to do for us. Our thoughts go to his family and to his friends.

James Paice: I associate the Opposition with the Minister's remarks.
	Many forces who apply for, and some who receive, special rural funding moneys are not in the extremities of the British Isles but in the south-east. Is the Minister aware—I know that he is—of the serious problems facing many forces, including rural ones, as a result of their losing qualified and trained officers to the Metropolitan police force because of the higher salaries, travel allowances and so on that it can pay? Is it true that the Minister has recommended to some chief officers that they should use the special priority payments figure of 1 per cent. of payroll to pay some sort of allowance so as to retain officers? If that is the case, will he tell the House whether he has abandoned the idea of special priority payments? If it is not the case, can he tell the House what proposals he has to help to narrow the gap between the terms of employment offered by the Metropolitan police and by the other forces in thesouth-east who are suffering seriously from officers transferring to the Metropolitan police?

John Denham: The House will understand why officers are being attracted to the Metropolitan police. In the past year and for the first time in many years, the Metropolitan police has been a net importer of police officers. Traditionally, the Met has recruited and exported police officers. One of the major reasons why the expansion in numbers in the Metropolitan police has taken place is its recruitment of additional officers, not least to strengthen its counter-terrorism service, which in practice provides a service across the country as a whole.
	There are issues with a number of the south-east forces. I met chief constables and their representatives before Christmas and I am due to meet them again in the next couple of weeks when I expect to receive further proposals from them. There is nothing wrong with using special priority payments to assist with the retention of police officers, and the guidance and criteria published by the Police Negotiating Board made it clear that that was one of the factors to be taken into account.

Heroin-Misusing Offenders

John Mann: What assessment he has made of the likely impact of custody plus and custody minus sentences upon the reoffending levels of heroin-misusing offenders.

Hilary Benn: The new sentences of custody plus and custody minus have been designed to enable courts to tailor sentencing decisions to the needs of the offender, including applying drugs treatment and rehabilitation requirements as appropriate.

John Mann: Does the Minister agree that a more detailed evaluation of success is possible if carried out on a geographically stable population of drug misusers?

Hilary Benn: I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on this issue, which I know is greatly admired by Members on both sides of the House. I agree that if we are to assess the effectiveness of the vastly increased resources that we are going to put into drug treatment, about which we had a good debate a week ago today, it is important that we do so in all kinds of communities, including those such as my hon. Friend's, whose particular characteristics have given rise to his understandable concern.

Angela Watkinson: Given the escalating number of heroin-using offenders, escalating demand for heroin treatment and the fact that the vast majority of heroin addicts started on cannabis, will the Home Secretary reconsider the relaxation of the law on cannabis?

Hilary Benn: No is what I would tell the hon. Lady, for the simple reason that that change has flowed from police practice over many years. Police officers say clearly in their advice to us that they wish to be able to concentrate on dealing with the most dangerous drugs, including heroin, to which she referred.

Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend concur with the proposition that effective probation services can help to reduce the reoffending rate of heroin users? Will he therefore undertake to investigate the proposed closure of the Lewis road probation service workshops in my constituency, as that service is valued locally?

Hilary Benn: I will gladly look into the details of the case that my hon. Friend has raised. On his general point, he is entirely right that the probation service has an important role to play, and is making a major contribution to the drug treatment and testing orders, which are proving to be successful.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister will agree that many heroin users commit burglary to fund their addiction. In that context, the Home Secretary said in response to the further final clarification by the Lord Chief Justice on burglary sentences:
	"I am pleased he has clarified that, not least that those who have committed a multiplicity of crimes, including other crimes than burglary, will not simply be let off, nor will they in terms of second or subsequent offences, expect to get, albeit a tough community sentence, but instead to get custody, I think that is the right signal, and I'm very glad to have clarified that."
	What did he mean?

Hilary Benn: The Home Secretary meant precisely what the hon. Gentleman has read out. If he is having difficulty understanding my right hon. Friend's words, the position is simply this—my right hon. Friend, the Lord Chief Justice in his clarification and others have said that repeat offenders who burgle for the first time should expect custody, because the public rightly will not understand or accept that repeat offenders who turn to burglary should expect to be treated in any other way.

Travellers

Colin Burgon: What measures he will take to simplify the procedure for the removal of travellers from unauthorised sites.

Michael Wills: We are introducing new powers of eviction to allow the police to take firm action against unauthorised encampments where local authorities have made adequate site provision without the preconditions in current legislation.

Colin Burgon: I thank the Minister for his reply. My question arose directly from my experiences of three visits by travellers to Allerton Bywater in my constituency, which caused great concern among local people. When the travellers finally departed, they left the place a tip. Will my hon. Friend make sure that the various organisations responsible for implementing the law are fully aware of their powers and use them effectively?

Michael Wills: I am aware of the problems that my hon. Friend has had in his constituency, which are shared by many Members on both sides of the House and are precisely why we are introducing those new powers. We will make sure that they are widely publicised and used, because that sort of behaviour is intolerable and it will not be tolerated.

Julian Lewis: I thank the Minister for his Department's willingness to meet the town clerk of Totton and Eling town council in my constituency who has been co-ordinating efforts to improve procedures for dealing with travellers in our part of Hampshire. As I understand it, the new powers that will be granted to make removal easier are contingent on the provision of sites for travellers by town councils. Will the Minister issue planning guidelines to adjust current restrictions on planning that make it difficult for town and parish councils to supply those sites, given normal restrictions on planning procedures; otherwise, with the best will in the world, councils may want to supply the sites, but be prevented from doing so by the restrictions on planning?

Michael Wills: We will look at all those aspects, including the planning guidelines, in the light of experience. There are existing powers to deal with such encampments; the problem is that it is difficult to deal with them quickly enough. That is what the new powers will do. We need to provide somewhere for the unauthorised encampments to go; otherwise they will simply take the problem somewhere else. That is why there is the link with local sites. We are providing extra funding. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minster is trying to find—

Julian Lewis: Planning guidance?

Michael Wills: I am coming to that in a moment. The hon. Gentleman should be a little patient. We need to provide extra funding. The ODPM, which has responsibility for the matter, is doing that. We are determined to make the problem go away, and we will not rest until it does. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that.

Street Wardens

Martin Linton: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of street wardens.

Michael Wills: As my hon. Friend is aware, there are three centrally funded warden schemes. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister retains overall responsibility for them, although many of the issues surrounding them fall to the Home Office as the lead Department. All the schemes are relatively new, so robust evaluations are not yet available. However, the preliminary work that has been done suggests that such schemes can contribute significantly to bringing down levels of crime, reducing antisocial behaviour and reducing fear of crime.

Martin Linton: Is the Minister aware that a Government-funded street warden scheme has already had a dramatic effect on reducing crime in Clapham junction—reducing crime overall by 13 per cent., compared with 4 per cent. borough-wide; reducing street crime by 32 per cent., compared with 20 per cent. borough-wide; reducing car crime by 40 per cent., compared with 7 per cent. borough-wide; and reducing the fear of crime by 60 per cent., according to a Wandsworth council survey, compared with the target given to the scheme of reducing fear of crime by 10 per cent? Given the success of these initial schemes, will the Minister do all he can to increase the number of community support schemes in areas like the London borough of Wandsworth?

Michael Wills: Yes, I am well aware of the success of the scheme in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am also aware of how hard he has campaigned and lobbied to make sure not only that the scheme is implemented, but that it is adequately funded. As a result, even Wandsworth borough council, which is no political friend of the Government, as the House is aware, recognises how successful the scheme has been. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything we can to make sure that those successes are replicated throughout the country.

John Wilkinson: Can the Minister make sure that such schemes are extended much more widely in the outer London boroughs, which have a serious problem with vandalism and unruly behaviour on the part of young people? Has he received any report yet from the Metropolitan Commissioner about the success of police community support officers in the central zone?

Michael Wills: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be replicating the schemes. Their success is evident and we will make sure that both they and the community support officers to whom he refers do the job that they are intended to do—to reduce crime, to reduce fear of crime and to reduce antisocial behaviour.

Youth Offending

Hywel Francis: What measures he is taking to tackle persistent youth offending.

John Denham: We have introduced a range of measures, which have cut re-conviction rates for young offenders by 14.6 per cent. compared with those for 1997.

Hywel Francis: The Minister will know of the success of Neath and Port Talbot crime and disorder partnership in achieving the first interim antisocial behaviour orders in the whole of Wales. Will he join me in congratulating the partnership on its proactive approach, particularly the local police and the local authority? Will he also consider providing additional funding for youth offending teams, and explore ways in which magistrates can be given all the information that they require as to why antisocial behaviour orders are being applied for, by considering evidence over a 12-month period, rather than over six months, as at present?

John Denham: I certainly congratulate the Neath and Port Talbot crime reduction partnership on making such early use of the new measures that were introduced last summer in the Police Reform Act 2002. There is already clear evidence to show that interim antisocial behaviour orders are enabling people to respond very quickly to problems in local communities.
	The six-month rule arises from underlying magistrates legislation rather than the antisocial behaviour order legislation. Let me make two points: first, we have changed the guidance, which should now make it easier and faster to bring ASBO cases to court; and secondly, it is possible to use evidence collected before the six-month period as background information when an ASBO is sought. With those things in mind, I think that antisocial behaviour orders are now much quicker and more flexible and adaptable than before.

Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that one persistent nuisance from persistent young offenders is graffiti? Why do the courts appear to be making so little use of the powers that Parliament has given them to require offenders to clear up graffiti? Does that reflect the low priority that they and perhaps the Government accord to the problem?

John Denham: That certainly does not take anything away from the priority that the Government accord the problem. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will publish a White Paper on antisocial behaviour in the very near future, with a view to introducing legislation in this Session.
	The response made in the courts varies from one part of the country to another. There is no doubt that where good efforts have been made to involve magistrates and magistrates' clerks in understanding local priorities for tackling antisocial behaviour, we have had much better support from the courts. I urge every crime reduction partnership to ensure that it has included the Court Service fully in understanding the nature of local problems and the measures that are being taken to tackle them.

Lunar House

Andrew MacKinlay: If he will make a statement on measures he proposes to improve the administration of Lunar House in Croydon.

Beverley Hughes: Substantial progress has been made in some areas, and as the Home Secretary said earlier, we expect to see a radical transformation this year in the operation and efficiency of the immigration and nationality directorate. We are pursuing a range of measures including the provision of additional resources and implementation of new processes to tackle backlogs and improve the handling of immigration and asylum applications, as well as correspondence.

Andrew MacKinlay: We are agreed about one thing: it can only get better. Why has it taken so long to address this problem? I have been in the House for 10 years and I know that the experience of all Members of Parliament is that documents are lost, letters are not replied to and decisions are sent to the wrong people. I give the Minister notice that, in six months' time, I shall try to raise the same question again—and there had better be improvements or there will be one hell of a bloody row.

Beverley Hughes: I can tell my hon. Friend that there has been progress. I share his frustration about the time that it is taking to sort out a situation that was in almost catastrophic meltdown when we took over in 1997. I should like to give him some examples, as I am not being complacent about the issue. The time taken to make an initial decision in asylum cases in 1997 was nearly two years. In 75 per cent. of cases, that time is now down to two months. Some 4,800 people were removed having failed in their applications in 1997. The number will be 13,000 this year. There is progress and it is steady. We would like it to be faster, but we clearly have a much more orderly and effective system that we ever had in 1997. I assure him that further measures are in place to improve on that situation and bring about the well managed, routinely organised and administratively efficient system that we undoubtedly need, and I will welcome the opportunity to report to him in future.

Andrew MacKinlay: I apologise for using the vernacular, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

James Clappison: The Minister has just told us that 13,000 people were removed last year because they had made unfounded asylum claims. How many asylum applicants had their applications refused last year and were therefore liable to be removed?

Beverley Hughes: I have not got that figure in my head, but many thousands were refused last year. The hon. Gentleman should take account of the figure that I cited earlier: fewer than 5,000 people were removed in 1997. We have put in place the resources to tackle the undoubted difficulty of removing people. As someone who has been involved with the Home Office and now serves on the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Gentleman should know the difficulties. We are dealing with them robustly; we have increased the number of removals year by year, and we will continue to do that.

Neil Gerrard: I am sure that the Minister knows that all too frequently people receive letters from the Home Office that state that they will receive permission to stay in the United Kingdom, or win an asylum appeal, but they are still waiting for the official status letter six months later. In the meantime, they have to survive on no income and are unable to get a job. Why is it impossible to send the official status letter as soon as the decision is made, instead of a letter that states, "You will be getting the official letter"?

Beverley Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a matter not simply of the official letter but of ensuring that, at the point of final refusal, people are encouraged and helped to leave; and that if they do not leave, they are forced to do so. We are pursuing all the means that we can to maximise the potential for voluntary removals. When people will not go voluntarily, we must enforce their removal.

Police (Gloucestershire)

Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on the financial settlement to Gloucestershire constabulary for the forthcoming financial year.

Michael Wills: My right hon. Friend the Police Minister announced the provisional police funding settlement for English police authorities on 5 December 2002. Gloucestershire police authority is provisionally set to receive a general grant of £57 million—an increase of 3 per cent. Gloucestershire is also provisionally set to receive up to £2.33 million through the crimefighting fund, £780,000 in rural grant, and £190,000 towards the cost of the airwave communications system. Gloucestershire is therefore provisionally set to receive an increase of 3.5 per cent. We expect to announce the final funding settlement on 5 February.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed response. However, I had a one-and-a-half hour meeting with the chief constable on Friday and he said that the money for Gloucestershire is sufficient to cover only the increase in pay that has been awarded and the increase in national insurance that the Government have forced on the authority. The chief constable asked me to ask the Minister how on earth he can be expected to finance the extra work in the national policing plan.
	Why did the Minister state in a written answer to me on 30 October that he intended
	"to provide sufficient resources to support Gloucestershire . . . in maintaining stable levels of service", [Official Report, 30 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 845W.]
	when cuts will have to made in the force unless there is a 55 per cent. increase in the local precept?

Michael Wills: The hon. Gentleman has missed out a statistic in his full and detailed question. Gloucestershire police are at record numbers. I remind him that in the last five years of Conservative Government, the number of police officers in Gloucestershire declined by 41. Under this Government, there are 50 more police officers than in 1997. The extra money is being spent on more police officers to fight and reduce the fear of crime. The Conservative Government signally failed to do that.

Parmjit Dhanda: May I reassure my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) omitted more than one statistic? On 23 December, £180,000 was announced for providing video interview and rape examination suites in Gloucestershire. Our current police force comprises 1,183 officers, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. That is far more police than we ever had in Gloucestershire previously. When the Conservative party was in power—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for the Minister to reply to such matters.

Drug Seizures

Chris Bryant: How much (a) crack cocaine and (b) heroin have been seized by the police each year since 1997.

Bob Ainsworth: The most recent data available show that the amount of heroin seized increased threefold and that that of cocaine increased nearly fivefold between 1997 and 2000. In the same period, the amount of crack cocaine seized fell. The updated drug strategy contains specific measures for high crime areas where crack is often a significant part of the problem.

Chris Bryant: I know that my hon. Friend will be aware of the terrible scourge that heroin represents in constituencies such as my own, in which 28 deaths have been caused by heroin overdoses in the last 18 months. I know that he will also want to congratulate all the officers involved in Operation Tarian, which has been particularly successful in seizing heroin and crack cocaine in the south Wales valleys over the last six months. Is he aware, however, of the concern being expressed by many local police officers that there is not strong co-operation between the different police forces in south Wales or with the Avon and Somerset police force? Does he agree that co-operation is essential if we are to ensure that drugs do not sweep through from Bristol into the south Wales valleys?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right to flag up that difficulty. Operation Tarian was funded partly by the Home Office to the tune of £500,000 a year, to provide exactly the cross-border co-operation that is needed between the three police forces in question. When providing that money, we said that it would be essential that those forces should not only co-operate with one another to deal with the very real problem that exists in south and mid-Wales but work closely with police in Avon and Somerset and the west midlands. The middle market, as we call it, into south Wales is often routed through Birmingham or Bristol, and the problem cannot be dealt with in isolation.

Jenny Tonge: As a matter of interest, has the Minister considered how much money the Treasury would have made out of charging VAT on the heroin and crack cocaine that has been seized, and what value that money could have provided in terms of the treatment of addicts and the reduction of crime?

Bob Ainsworth: That is not a calculation that I have immediately in my head. The hon. Lady should consider, also as a matter of interest, the size of the public health problem that we might have if we went down the road that she is suggesting. The prevalence of the use of class A drugs is nothing like what it could be if we implemented the policies that she is, in effect, expounding.

Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that concentrating on cutting off the demand for illicit drugs is far more important than concentrating on their seizure, and that concentrating too much on seizure might have the perverse effect of raising street prices and, consequently, of increasing crime?

Bob Ainsworth: Both are important. I think that my hon. Friend would recognise that we have tried, in the updated drugs strategy, to rebalance our spending towards harm minimisation and treatment and, therefore, towards demand reduction. We cannot, however, abandon the attack on availability or the attempts to dismantle the groups that bring these substances into the country. Lower prices and more ready availability would surely only lead to a bigger problem. The two issues must go hand in hand: we must attack both availability and demand. The most effective way to do that, as I think my hon. Friend knows, is to get addicts into good treatment, which is why we are emphasising that provision at the moment.

Gun Crime

George Osborne: What plans he has to introduce targets to reduce gun crime.

Richard Bacon: If he will make a statement on gun crime.

David Blunkett: The immediate target has to be to reduce the year-on-year increase in gun crime associated with organised gang criminality. That is why we have already made changes to the law on minimum penalties for those illegally carrying guns, banned the import of guns that can be converted, changed the law relating to replica guns and the carrying of guns in a public place, and introduced measures relating to the age limit for the purchase and ownership of air weapons. All those measures form part of a jigsaw to tackle the unacceptably high level of organised gun crime in this country.

George Osborne: What the Home Secretary did not say, of course, is that gun crime is already up 90 per cent. under this Government. Does he really think that his jigsaw, which includes yet another departmental taskforce, yet another amnesty and more headline-grabbing attacks on the rap music industry, will seriously trouble hardened criminal gangs that use guns and feed off the crack cocaine trade? If he thinks that his strategy will work, why does he not set a specific target, as he has done in many areas of Home Office policy, on reducing gun crime?

David Blunkett: I have just indicated that the task ahead of us is to reduce the exponential rise, and we have made no bones about the danger and the difficulty that that poses, but the measures that the hon. Gentleman has just attacked were all put forward either by the police or by those deeply associated with the job of reducing gun crime. We have responded, as any sensible Government would, to the suggestions made, including at the round table meeting that I held on 10 January, which was extremely productive and engaged a range of agencies, enterprises and community groups, all of which have a part to play.

Richard Bacon: Most people will be very dissatisfied with the Home Secretary's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when the Government came to power there were about 12,000 firearms offences, that the number is about 22,000 today and that in the past five years the number of offences involving handguns has more than doubled? When is he going to take the problem seriously and stop offering the House of Commons no more than a reduction in the increase in gun offences? We need a decrease for the people of this country.

David Blunkett: Reducing does mean decreasing—at least it does in my dictionary—and I have every intention of ensuring that we do that together, but action on air weapons, conversions and the import of Brocock and similar weapons are all a critical part of the process. The Metropolitan police revealed at the round table meeting that 75 per cent. of the guns that they picked up were conversions, so the measures that we are taking are directly related to the problem, linked as they are to changing the culture in the communities most affected. Sometimes we get the blame for what others do; sometimes others get the blame for what I do. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Tatton is wrong in his presumption that I have blamed rap—although gangs using rap are an entirely different matter.

Vernon Coaker: I welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has taken to toughen some gun laws. All of us want guns off our streets, and one way to do that is to enforce those laws and ensure that people who use guns face the full weight of the law. Does he recognise that to prosecute people in the courts we need witnesses to come forward? Will he consider ways to encourage community members to come forward with information and to protect witnesses from the intimidation that they feel, which prevents many from giving the police information that would lead to prosecution?

David Blunkett: That is a critical point, and it was raised at the round table meeting. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will take the necessary steps suggested by community groups, in terms of a substantial strengthening of the protection of victims, the availability of that protection, and encouraging the communities from which people are giving such evidence to be part of the process. That should include the ability to provide information confidentially, providing a hotline that is trusted and understood by those who can give such information, and getting the message across—this has been done in individual instances—that in extremis we can give people a new identity until the issue has been properly dealt with.

Police Community Support Officers

Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the funding of police community support officers.

David Blunkett: In the current financial year, we have allocated £19 million to the development—the pump priming—of community support officers. In the coming year, that will more than double to about £40 million, £3.6 million of which will be allocated to the Greater Manchester police area.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Home Secretary, but he knows that his Department will meet only 50 per cent. of the cost of community support officers in Greater Manchester from 2004. From 2006, none of the cost will be met. Does he expect Greater Manchester police to cut the number of community support officers or the number of regular police officers?

David Blunkett: Just for a moment, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to welcome the fact that the first community support officer started work in his constituency this morning. Along with the 160 who will be available next year, that officer will be doing a damn good job in protecting the people of the area. I can announce today that there will be 100 per cent. funding through to April 2004. There will be 75 per cent. funding for 2004–05, and 50 per cent. from 2005–06 for that final year of the spending review. We have made it clear all along—the Opposition have asked us to do so—that we will not have constant and permanent ring-fenced funds, but that we will give kick-start initial funding and then freedom and power to the chief constable and the police authority to do the job at local level. So going local has to involve local decision making.

Firefighters' Dispute

John Prescott: On 16 December, I announced to the House the publication of Sir George Bain's independent report on the future of the fire service. In my statement, I set out the Government's commitment to taking forward the review's recommendations. I also undertook to keep the House informed of further developments.
	The House will recall that at the beginning of December, at the Fire Brigades Union's request, both sides in the dispute agreed to return to the negotiating table and enter into a programme of talks at ACAS. On 2 December, the FBU general secretary said:
	"we welcome the intervention of ACAS at this stage of the dispute and hope that all parties involved will grasp this opportunity to find a settlement agreeable to all parties concerned".
	He also said that the union would enter into the process constructively and positively. Despite that, and despite the fact that the FBU had asked for the talks at ACAS and those talks had hardly got under way, on 10 January the union announced an additional 24-hour strike, which will start tomorrow at 9 am. That will be followed by two 48-hour strikes starting on 28 January and 1 February, so the story so far this year is one day of talks and a threat of five days of strikes.
	Based on the recommendations on pay and modernisation in the Bain report, the fire service employers have offered an 11.3 per cent. pay increase over two years, linked to modernisation. That is a good offer by any standards. The 4 per cent. offered for this year is more than the firefighters would have got under the old formula, and that formula was defended as recently as July 2000, when the FBU general secretary told his members:
	"Our wages remain ahead of other essential public sector workers precisely because we have maintained the formula".
	The 4 per cent. on offer is also almost twice the rate of inflation, and is well above the average level of public sector pay settlements.
	Given that background, and in the light of the Bain review, I must repeat to the FBU and its members that further strike action will achieve nothing. It will only make it more difficult to settle this dispute. It is damaging and it poses a danger to public safety.
	As my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and I have said again and again, pay and modernisation must go hand in hand. The two sides in this dispute must negotiate on that basis. Bain provides the framework for a deal. It is that simple. That will remain the Government's position regardless of further strike action.
	I urge the FBU and its members to join us in building the modernised fire service that the people of this country need and deserve. Firefighters themselves have called for change to improve the service. I say to them, "Let us now get on with the job."
	The Government are already implementing the modernisation agenda set out in the Bain review. Since Bain reported, we have made good progress in moving ahead with his recommendations for a better, safer fire service. For example, with the agreement of the House, the Government will repeal section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 via the Local Government Bill. That will allow local decisions to be made on the level of fire cover required to ensure the safety of local communities. Later this month, we will issue for consultation revised guidance on a new approach to fire cover, drawn up by Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services. That will ensure that fire brigades have the right people in the right place at the right time to deal with the real risks posed by fire and other emergencies in today's world.
	Next, the fire service inspectorate is being modernised and restructured to fulfil its new responsibilities, as recommended by the Bain report. Its key roles from now on will be to support delivery and to help develop the new generation of fire service professional managers who will run the modernised fire and rescue service.
	Finally, Bain recommended a new forum of fire and other emergency service leaders to help us to drive forward the modernisation agenda. As a first step, a meeting with all the UK's chief fire officers will be held later this week.
	I will give the House further information in the White Paper, which we will publish later this year. I will also include our detailed response to the recommendations in Bain.
	Given the concerns raised by Members about the importance of local consultation when fire service modernisation is being dealt with, let me assure them that nothing proposed in Bain will undermine consultation arrangements with local communities. The Government and employers are getting on with implementing Bain; unfortunately, by contrast, the FBU has continued to oppose Bain's recommendations. It has made exaggerated and misleading statements about the number of job cuts and fire station closures implied by Bain, without engaging seriously in negotiation with the employers.
	I met the general secretary of the FBU on 9 January and again this morning. On 9 January, we discussed the Government's plans for modernisation of the fire service. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has now written to the general secretary setting out a range of issues that will be covered in the forthcoming White Paper. I hope that the FBU will take advantage of this opportunity to contribute to the modernisation agenda. Whether it contributes or not, however, let me say again to the FBU and its members that, if they persist in their programme of industrial action, the Government will fully discharge their own responsibilities.
	Our primary responsibility, especially at a time of heightened public concern about terrorism, is to do everything possible to provide the public with the highest level of protection. We have robust and tested contingency plans to provide that emergency cover. We have built on what we have learnt from previous strikes. We now have 177 red appliances to add to the capacity of the green goddesses and the specialist rescue teams, over 90 more than during the last strike.
	This morning, the civil contingencies committee met and ran through the military, police and other arrangements for maintaining fire and rescue cover during tomorrow's strike. As I told the House before, however, the military can provide only an emergency service, not a replacement service. During the strike, it is vital for people to take all necessary precautions to protect themselves and their families. To underline that, we are launching a further advertising campaign today to remind people of the increased dangers posed by fires during the strike.
	The House will recall that before the last strike the FBU leadership signed a UK-wide gold command agreement in which it undertook to ensure that its members were available during the strike to deal with large-scale incidents such as terrorist attacks. To be fully effective, those arrangements had to be confirmed by local agreements at brigade level. During the last strike, local agreements were confirmed by the FBU in only 33 of the 58 fire brigades. Since then the situation has improved—agreements are in place in 53 brigades, and I hope that by tomorrow morning we will have 56 agreements—but even one area without an agreement is one too many.
	I raised that again with the FBU general secretary when I met him this morning. He assured me that he was still working to ensure that the arrangements were in place in every fire brigade. Dealing with the consequences of strikes is one thing, but, as I said to the general secretary this morning, there is no need for these strikes at all. The FBU should be at ACAS, in talks with the local authority employers: that is the right way ahead.
	I urge the FBU to take the only realistic and responsible approach, and call off the strike. These strikes cannot and will not achieve anything. Get back to the talks at ACAS. Do not put the public at unnecessary risk.
	I will keep the House informed of developments.

David Davis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for making his statement, and for giving me prior sight of it. I add our support to his calls for the Fire Brigades Union to call off its irresponsible strike action. I also welcome much of what he had to say about the modernisation of the fire service. I shall return to that in a moment.
	Subject to proper scrutiny, we will support the right hon. Gentleman's repeal of section 19 of the 1947 Act. It is also good news that the Government have at last mobilised 177 red fire engines, as we have asked them to on many occasions. That can only be for the greater safety of the public and, of course, that of the armed forces when they are fulfilling their firefighting task. Better late than never.
	Nevertheless, given today's reports that the unions are preparing for a dispute that will last at least until the summer, the British people could be excused for feeling that an added sense of urgency is still needed from the Government to ensure that their safety is protected.
	Our military are now under extreme pressure, with advance deployments to the Gulf region under way, and a war on terror on our doorsteps. As a result, there are worries about the level of firefighting cover that the military can provide. For example, last week we heard that 16 Air Assault Brigade, including units covering Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Dumfries and Galloway, were removed from firefighting cover to be redeployed to the Gulf. When my hon. Friend the shadow defence spokesman asked the Ministry of Defence who was going to take over their firefighting role, it was clear that adequate replacements had not been found, and 16 Air Assault was promptly returned to firefighting duties. Today, we hear from the news media that it will after all be deployed abroad. Therefore, in less than two weeks, 16 Air Assault appears to have been on fire duty, off fire duty, on duty again, and off again, if the news is to be believed. It would have put the grand old Duke of York to shame. Let us have a straight answer from the Deputy Prime Minister. Who will cover for 16 Air Assault at home? Does he have a grip on that critical aspect of protecting public safety?
	In November, the Minister with responsibility for the armed forces told the House that it would take
	"five weeks to train crews to the standard of retained firefighters and 12 weeks to that of full-time firefighters"—[Official Report, 21 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 220W.]
	Yet, on 11 January, an MOD spokesman said that most troops only needed "about ten hours' training". Who is right and what training regime is the military cover now on—12 weeks, five weeks or 10 hours? Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that there will be enough fully trained troops on call to cover for striking firefighters?
	With the strike starting tomorrow at 9 am, there is a real concern that Government are trying to do too much with too little. At present, with our troops needed overseas, various expert personnel—the Deputy Prime Minister referred to them—from the Navy and Air Force trained in the use of rescue equipment and breathing apparatus will be needed both at home and abroad. Will he confirm whether that is the case? Will our armed forces operating abroad be expected to risk their lives without those important rescue teams because they are committed to defending the public at home?
	It is also clear now that there is an unprecedented level of terrorist threat at home, while it is extremely likely that our military will be deployed to fight a war abroad. Surely, given those very particular circumstances, it is in the public interest for the Government to seek the necessary legal action to ensure that the public are protected against further fire strikes. Under section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—introduced by a Conservative Government, in case the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has forgotten—the Deputy Prime Minister has the power to ask the Attorney-General to seek an injunction to stop any action that "wilfully and maliciously" endangers lives. Clearly, lives are now being put at risk. When asked about this before, both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have ducked the question, claiming that it is a matter for the courts. That, of course, is the last stage of the process. The first step is for them to ask the Attorney-General to seek an injunction to stop the strikes, thus ensuring that the decision is put in the hands of a judge. The public interest now requires the Government to act.
	In the present circumstances, I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister understands why the public are concerned about their safety in the event of extended strike action, but beyond that action and the added pressure on our military, there are still questions about how a modernised fire service will look. As I said earlier, we support the reforms proposed by Bain to the fire service but that support is not a blank cheque and one would expect some performance for it. Will the Deputy Prime Minister now tell the House whether he expects the reforms to deliver a halving in death rates, as modernisation brought in New Zealand from similar death rates, or, closer to home, after improvements by Conservative-controlled Kent county council? That is another question that he failed to answer last time when I put it to him.
	The Deputy Prime Minister's actions over the coming days will set out his true approach to government. These strikes have already gone on for too long. The FBU should never be allowed to take such action when British citizens face threats, both at home and abroad. The Deputy Prime Minister has a choice: he can either put the people of this country first and seek an injunction to stop this utterly irresponsible strike action, or he can yet again duck the issue and allow this irresponsible union leadership to continue with its dangerous action.
	It is now time for the Deputy Prime Minister to get a grip and seek an injunction. It is now time to put the public first and politics last.

John Prescott: If there were ever an example of putting politics first, it is the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman, which has more to do with the leadership of the Conservative party than with the safety of the public. Anyway, let me officially thank him for his few words of support at the beginning. In the light of all the points that he made, I should point out that the concern of the Government—and, hopefully, of the Opposition—is to maximise the protection of public safety, and to avoid as many days of dispute as possible. Although the armed services have done an excellent job, in general, the House has accepted that its alternative service is not as good as that provided by the regular fire service.
	When this dispute began last year, there was the threat of 36 days of dispute, but patient negotiation has reduced that to 10 days. In other words, 26 days have been taken off the strike threat, and I think that the public are grateful for that. It is such judgments about the best way to proceed that we in government have to make.
	It is interesting to note that the shadow Attorney-General is not here. He would undoubtedly have assured the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the judgment of Governments as to whether an action is sought in the courts; it is the Attorney-General's judgment. The Attorney-General has the independence to make that judgment, and Governments cannot interfere with that decision. He is required to talk in person to me, in this case, and to make some assessment of the threat to public safety, and of the course that the dispute is taking. That has happened regularly—even in the past few days. At the end of the day, it is the Attorney-General's judgment as to whether he should take an action. That has always been the case: it was true when the Conservatives were in government, and it is true for us. The right hon. Gentleman should consult the shadow Attorney-General, who would give him that assurance, but to be honest, I think that he is already aware of that point. However, it sounds good to be thumping away at the Dispatch Box, saying that legal action is the best way to deal with this issue. A matter of judgment is involved here, and I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman.
	On the availability of the armed forces to provide the excellent service that they have already provided, I should point out that most of the quotes that the right hon. Gentleman gave came from the press. I am not as confident as he is about press reports on these matters, but I am quite prepared to take the advice of the armed services, which tell me that the same number of people will be available—experienced and qualified people—to provide this alternative fire service. I accept their judgment and it is proper for me to do so, rather than relying on the evidence of a number of reports in the Daily Mail. To that extent, that is absolutely the right thing to do, and it would be irresponsible of me to do otherwise.
	I have made it clear in public statements and in statements in this House that there undoubtedly must be a connection between modernisation and pay. There also has to be a review of the fire service's current risk assessment. We have suggested all manner of changes and Bain has made recommendations, some of which we are dealing with. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Kent county council, to which I pay proper tribute. I also pay tribute to the council's Tory leader, who first brought it to my attention that the training and other actions taken by it—which have more to do with intervention, rather than prevention—have provided a better means of reducing the number of incidents. Bain is all about putting greater emphasis on intervention, rather than prevention, and the Government's modernisation proposals are geared towards achieving that.

Edward Davey: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and I agree that the latest strikes are unnecessary. The FBU leadership should be back talking with the employers at ACAS, rather than striking. However, can he clear up one confusion as to his own position? He talks about the publication of a White Paper for the fire services—in which Ministers will set out their detailed reactions to Bain—some time before Easter, yet Ministers are asking employers and the FBU leadership to make up their minds on the details of Bain even before the White Paper's publication. Is there not some inconsistency in this regard? Can he tell the House exactly when the Government's detailed position on Bain will be known? Surely that would be helpful for the talks at ACAS.
	Will the Deputy Prime Minister say more about the fire cover arrangements for the strikes, particularly, as the Conservative spokesman said, in the context of the latest deployment of armed forces to the Gulf? Will he confirm that some of the troops covering the strike, including the 3rd Parachute Regiment, are currently on training before deployment, and that they must break that training to cover the strikes and will then be sent out to Kuwait immediately after the strike on 28 January? Is that a sensible way either to train our forces before deployment or to cover the fire strikes? Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that some of the specialists trained for the breathing apparatus rescue teams and rescue equipment support teams are among those being deployed? Is that gap to be filled by other specialists?
	As regards future talks, will the Deputy Prime Minister make it clear again that the Government are willing to provide sufficient transitional funding to assist any settlement that is agreed? Will he ensure that those fire authorities that have already modernised, and therefore cannot make the savings available to others, will not be penalised by the way in which that funding is provided? Will he further reassure fire authorities that they will not be left by themselves to negotiate every aspect of Bain modernisation with their local FBU branch? If and when the FBU decides to return to the negotiating table, will the Deputy Prime Minister support the new local employer negotiating team in providing clear guidelines for fire authorities about agreements reached on Bain modernisation?
	Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that the firefighters to whom I have talked accept the need for modernisation and understand that better fire prevention is the surest way to save lives, particularly at night? Will he urgently look into Bain's proposals for greater use of local and even regional pay settlements? Does he agree that those may be one way out of the present cul-de-sac?

John Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of support. I assure him that the Government accept the broad thrust of the Bain report, as I have stated in the House. We will provide more details about the White Paper, and we will enter into discussions with many of those who will be directly affected by the Bain report. I told the general secretary of the FBU and the employers about the broad framework, and the Government will discuss the Bain proposals with all those who have an active interest in them. It is clear that the broad thrust of that report is accepted. I accept that there are difficulties concerning the implications for different areas, and we will take those into account. We do not want to see areas penalised because of their geography.
	Whatever agreement is arrived at, the package has to be self-financing. We have made that clear, and Bain made it clear. The period for the introduction of the pay proposals will be longer than the two years that have been discussed; Bain suggests that three years will be necessary. We recognise that we may have to find more resources in the early stages of the agreement, and I have agreed to that, but the terms and conditions will have to fit into the overall policy that the package is self-financing, albeit over three years.
	On the provision of troops, as I said earlier, there may be some change in the deployment, and specialist units may be removed because of the situation regarding Iraq. There is to be a statement about that later, and detailed matters can be pursued then, but I am assured that we have the same number of people with the same amount of specialist training to carry out the fire service obligations.

Russell Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for reassuring me that Dumfries and Galloway will be covered during tomorrow's strike. Like him, I do not necessarily always respond to what the national press says. I urge him not to listen to the main Opposition party: the solution to the dispute lies not in the courts but at ACAS, with negotiations involving all sides.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned the Bain inquiry and the recommendation for a salary increase of 11.3 per cent. over time. I recently met an FBU officer from my local branch who told me that a 4 per cent. increase will be funded, but there is no guarantee of a 7.3 per cent. rise beyond that because of difficulties concerning the amount that would have to be paid to retained firefighters. Is my right hon. Friend in a position to clarify that point?

John Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his support.
	As regards solutions, I agree with my hon. Friend that, when negotiations are going on, it is best not to inflame the situation by advocating all sorts of legal action. However, we all understand the position of the Opposition: they are not interested in a solution, but only in making political capital out of it. The general feeling of the House is that people should be talking and reaching agreement through ACAS. That is the overwhelming view of the House.
	The employers offered a 4 per cent. wage increase for the first year, which was referred to in the Bain inquiry. The figure of 11.3 per cent. was made up of the 7.3 per cent. to which my hon. Friend referred and that 4 per cent. increase, and is part of the modernisation proposals on which the firefighters have to enter negotiations. As he pointed out, the 7.3 per cent. is part of the overall pay bill. As he knows, there was considerable discussion in the earlier negotiations about the full-time workers, the retained workers and the whole range of workers who are involved in the fire service. Those matters are for negotiation between the employers and the employees. The funding of the package has now been decided. It was recommended by Bain and accepted by the Government, and the firefighters should now sit down and negotiate.

Anne McIntosh: Has the Deputy Prime Minister formed a view on whether it would be advisable to lock striking firemen out of their fire stations, for example, to enable the Army to use the red engines?

John Prescott: That is another helpful and constructive view from the Opposition. I have already given the House the Government's point of view.

Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the past two or three weeks, I have detected in meetings with some FBU people that the argument has shifted just a little towards jobs and is no longer so much on the pay front? Some of my colleagues have been present at meetings where such matters were discussed.
	In view of the fact that, over the years, both my right hon. Friend and I have fought to save jobs in our respective industries, does he agree that people should be prepared to discuss and deal with some aspects of Bain, but that we should be very careful over the question of job losses? One of the Government's proudest claims is that we have managed to get more than 1 million people back into work, so it sits uneasily to tell a union, "You'll have to lose some jobs." I hope that we can have a modernisation that is not dissimilar to the one in the House of Commons, where we have modernised everything, there is no night shift and nobody has lost their job.

John Prescott: I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by my hon. Friend, especially that the Government have a tremendous record in increasing the level of employment.
	An awful lot has been said about job cuts, but I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that, overall, we have to take the safety of the public into account when providing the service. That is our first requirement. However, the process does not require job cuts. The controversy about job cuts was addressed by Bain, who said that there was no need for enforced redundancies in the industry. He pointed out that changes to the pension scheme would bring about a considerable amount of retirement by choice as people reached 50 to 53 years of age. That means that change could be brought about without enforced redundancies.
	My hon. Friend will know that often in negotiations, the position on redundancy is strict—"You're out"—and that is what people have to accept. In this case, there would be no enforced redundancy, simply negotiations and readjustment. That is unlike the position in my hon. Friend's industry, which faced the threat that thousands would be out of work; indeed, 100,000 workers lost their jobs and 100 pits were closed. There was no choice—they were out. That is not the situation that faces the fire workers.

Charles Hendry: Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to Alex Kent, a 25-year-old firefighter in Crowborough in my constituency, who lost his life a week ago trying to save the life of his younger brother? None of us can understand the grief of his parents who lost everything—their children and their home—in a few devastating hours.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one unfortunate aspect of this dispute is that, by forcing people to take entrenched positions, we have lost sight of the fact that firefighters daily put their lives on the line to save the lives of others?

John Prescott: The whole House joins the hon. Gentleman in extending sympathy in the tragic circumstances in which that fire worker died and in acknowledging the risks that firemen face every day. Members of the armed forces face similar risks in such situations. We must not only offer our sympathy but reduce the risk of such tragedies happening in what we all agree is a dangerous profession. The best way of achieving that is to get to a new service, deal with the changes necessary for a modernised service and return to providing one—rather than being in dispute.

Alan Simpson: Is there is not a fundamental problem with getting ACAS to work when a precondition appears to be signing up to the Bain report—which includes terms that the Deputy Prime Minister would never have accepted as a trade union negotiator? It would appear that the employers and the FBU agree on the need for change to the risk-based assessments upon which shifts, hours and staffing depend, but the shift from property-based to life-based risk has yet to be made. Would it not make more sense for that to be done first, before asking firefighters to sign up to the consequences? The second matter, which is connected, is that before the dispute—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounds like more than one question to me.

John Prescott: My hon. Friend asks me to consider whether I would have accepted preconditions in respect of ACAS discussions. Anyone who is familiar with ACAS procedures knows that the employer states his position and the employees state their position. They do not agree. They go into two different rooms and ACAS shuffles between them. They are at ACAS because they do not agree. Lots of conditions are often laid down by both parties. The FBU's wish not to talk about Bain or reorganisation is a condition. ACAS gets the two parties in different rooms in the hope of finding some way forward and I am sure that the House agrees with that objective.
	My hon. Friend is right about risk assessment. In the present circumstances, more importance is placed on property than human life. That approach existed under the old system but we are proposing change. That is called modernisation and I hope that everybody will accept it.

David Curry: Will the right hon. Gentleman help me to understand the Prime Minister's comment in Prime Minister's questions last week that
	"the decision whether to seek an injunction is taken by the Attorney-General, on the basis of whether such an injunction would succeed or not. It is a decision for him, and not one that I can or should take."—[Official Report, 15 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 680.]
	Does that mean that the decision whether or not to seek an injunction will be based on public safety or the likelihood of success? At a time when the Prime Minister is sending our armed forces abroad, possibly to fight a war, are we to believe that the Prime Minister will play no part in deciding whether to seek an injunction to halt the firefighters' strike?

John Prescott: The Prime Minister has made a number of comments and does not solely rest his case on the Attorney-General and whether or not an injunction might succeed. However, the right hon. Gentleman may agree that the Attorney-General might take that matter into account. He must take into account the threat to public safety and order—which he does by making an assessment of the situation, talking to the Ministers involved, then making a judgment. The Prime Minister made it clear that that matter is for the Attorney-General's judgment—not for him or Ministers.

John Cryer: Following on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), when firefighters retire, will they be replaced by new recruits or not? On the back of the loss of hundreds of firefighters' jobs and scores of pumps; station closures over the past 20 years; the Audit Commission's report; and the White Paper published three or four years ago, which recommended expanding the service and moving to risk-based assessment, will my right hon. Friend look at expanding the fire service, not cutting it?

John Prescott: Under the present system, retired firefighters have not necessarily been replaced. The FBU makes that precise point to us from time to time. The union is not saying that should not happen but that there should be effective deployment of people in the fire services—and the FBU has been prepared to consider that as part of modernisation. Bain has said that is proper—and that there should be proper risk assessment before arriving at judgments locally on what changes should be made. It is not up to me to make such judgments in local areas but for local authorities to decide the provision of public services. We have endorsed and adopted the Bain proposals and hope that the FBU will now starting talking about them.

Michael Weir: The Deputy Prime Minister has made very clear this afternoon the Government's commitment to Bain, but is he aware that it is being reported that local authority leaders have written to the FBU and are said to have withdrawn a demand that the union commit itself to the Bain review's recommendations? Can he tell us whether that is indeed the case and, if so, will he allow the employers and unions to negotiate outwith the constraints of Bain, or will he step in to scupper such negotiations?

John Prescott: The local authorities have made it clear, since the Bain inquiry reported, that they expect the negotiations to take place on the basis of the Bain proposals. That is precisely the Government's position; it is the local authorities' position, and it is now being discussed in ACAS.

Jim Sheridan: I share my right hon. Friend's concern that any further strike by firefighters will be extremely damaging, but may I remind him that there was a period of good will during the festive period when disputes were suspended? That suggests that a feeling of good will and maturity is creeping into the dispute, but does he agree that any progress will be undermined by the terrible attacks by some in the national press of the firefighters' leaders and, equally, by the personal attacks by local firefighters on politicians at all levels, but particularly those at local level who have little or no influence in this dispute?

John Prescott: I certainly agree that good will is important—an awful lot of it exists—but it is sometimes undermined by some outrageous statements made by all parties in the dispute, which are often exploited by the press. At the end of the day, though, people should focus their attention on the real issue: providing a good and safe fire service—a modernised fire service—involving all the members of the FBU, who need to sit down and discuss the proposals. The inquiry has produced what I think is a very good solution; we now need to work out exactly how we will implement it.

Crispin Blunt: Does the Deputy Prime Minister understand that the Government have now got themselves into the absurd position of calling up striking firemen as reservists for service in the Gulf, while regular servicemen remain on stand-by here to cover for striking firemen? Has he explained to the Attorney-General that that does not appear to be in the public interest? If he has not done so, will he do so?

John Prescott: To be honest, that could only come from a military mind. That is an anomaly, as the hon. Gentleman properly points out. If it is true—[Interruption.] Well, it is a concern, but it is not a matter of great consideration. There may be one or two individuals in the fire brigade who presumably offer to stand by to play a part in such emergencies, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman condones that and believes that it is proper for them to do so. Where there are anomalies like that, I am sure that those firefighters' places will be covered by other available people. That arrangement creates a certain anomaly, but it is certainly not on any scale that would require a major policy to deal with it.

David Heath: When the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement on this subject back in November does he remember saying, quite rightly, that hoax calls were utterly unacceptable, that they would be dealt with very severely and that there would be exemplary sentences? Is he aware that the Solicitor-General revealed in a written answer to me published on Tuesday 17 December in column 661W of Hansard that the number of individuals who were actually charged during the first firemen's strike was just two? What happened?

John Prescott: I am advised that there have been more than that and that the sentences have been severe. There have been some exemplary sentences—they have been referred to in debates—but I am prepared to look at that matter again, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Christopher Chope: The Deputy Prime Minister has been rightly critical of the FBU. Will he today publicly encourage firefighers who are members of that union but share his dissatisfaction with it to resign from the union?

John Prescott: Those are matters for individuals to make decisions about. I have made it clear to the FBU and its members that it is not worth pursuing any further strike, and they must make their judgment on whether they remain in the FBU. It is their right to do that. I am sure that there are different voices and opinions in the FBU itself about the course of action, but it is for the union to make its own decision. That is called a human rights consideration, which I support.

Vincent Cable: It is not just working practices, but Government fire regulations that are seriously antiquated. Beyond the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, do the Government have any plan to accelerate their leisurely timetable to introduce a new fire services Act?

John Prescott: These matters will be addressed in the White Paper, but we have made it clear that we are prepared to act quickly on them. I have tried to indicate to the House the sort of things that we have been doing since the Bain report, which was made less than four weeks ago, and there has been a holiday period, too. The White Paper will make it clear that we intend to act quickly, which is necessary. As I made clear in my statement, whether the FBU agrees to the modernisation or not, it is our job to get on with implementing modernisation, for which the Government have some responsibility, and I encourage the FBU to do the same.

Iraq: Further Contingency Preparations

Geoff Hoon: I should like to make a statement on further contingency preparations in relation to Iraq.
	It may be helpful to remind the House of the preparations announced previously. On 25 November and 18 December, I described the measures that we were taking to ensure that our forces were prepared and had the training, equipment and support they might need, as well as the consideration that we were giving to the potential requirements for reservists and additional maritime deployments.
	In a statement on 7 January, I announced the making of an order enabling the call-out of reservists, and the deployment of maritime forces including 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines. I explained that it was likely that we would want to make further deployments in the coming weeks to be able to keep military options open, and that we were taking steps to ensure the readiness of units and equipment, and the availability of appropriate chartered shipping and air transport. In a written statement on 14 January, I described the details of continuing preparatory activity, involving the movement and deployment of enabling equipment, including tracked vehicles, exploratory visits and liaison with other military staffs in the region.
	When I made a statement on 7 January, a number of hon. Members pressed me to say what other forces the Government intend to make available. In particular, I was invited to set out the nature of any land force that might be deployed. I explained at that time that I could not do so, for the simple reason that no decision had by then been taken.
	I am now in a position to be able to tell the House that we have reached a view on the composition and deployment of a land force package to provide military capabilities for potential operations against Iraq. That force will include the headquarters of 1 UK Armoured Division with support from 7 Armoured Brigade, 16 Air Assault Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade. Its equipment will include 120 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, 150 Warrior armoured personnel carriers, 32 AS 90 self-propelled guns, 18 light guns, and a number of reconnaissance and other vehicles. The total number of personnel involved in this land force will be approximately 26,000. In addition, we are already deploying 3 Commando Brigade, with around 4,000 personnel including their supporting elements.
	The House will not expect me to discuss the specific tasks that might be undertaken by our forces in the event of military operations. This is, however, a high-readiness, balanced and flexible force package, bringing together a wide range of capabilities. The chiefs of staff and I are confident that this is the right group of forces for the sort of tasks that may be necessary.
	The House will recognise that a force package of this size cannot be deployed without notice. As the written statement on 14 January explained, to keep this option open, we have already started the movement and deployment of enabling assets, including logistics, engineering, signals and command vehicles and equipment. We will now begin to deploy the combat equipment and personnel of the formations comprising the land force package. That will involve significant movements from units in both the United Kingdom and Germany before their deployment by sea and air over the days and weeks ahead. Headquarters and support staffs will also deploy to liaise with other military staffs in the region and to take forward planning and preparatory activity.
	In the coming weeks, we will also need to call out additional reservists in support of these land forces. The details of our overall reservist requirement are continuing to evolve, and I expect to be able to provide further information on that in due course.
	None of the steps that we are taking represents a commitment of British forces to specific military action. These are measures necessary to provide a range of military options that we may require. A decision to employ force has not been taken, nor is such a decision imminent or inevitable. I must also emphasise, however, as all Members will recognise, that the deployment of forces on this scale is no ordinary measure.
	While we want Saddam Hussein to disarm voluntarily, it is evident that we will not achieve that unless we continue to present him with a clear and credible threat of force. That is why I have announced these deployments, in support of the diplomatic process to which we remain fully committed. It is not too late for Saddam Hussein to recognise the will of the international community and respect United Nations resolutions. Let us all hope that he does so.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for making a copy of it available in advance.
	This is an important moment. When a quarter of the British Army is deployed on a single operation in addition to the 4,000 already deployed in the amphibious taskforce, it is a huge commitment. The Opposition have consistently supported the broad thrust of the Government's policy of diplomacy backed by force against Iraq ever since the Prime Minister first made his position known in the summer. Therefore, the House need be in no doubt that we support this decision.
	I spent a week last year with the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment in Germany. Almost a year ago, it was preparing its men and equipment for just such an eventuality. Let there be no doubt about the determination and professionalism of the whole of the British armed forces to carry out whatever tasks are asked of them.
	Inevitably, this statement raises a huge number of questions, but I would like the Secretary of State to address just three broad issues concerning preparedness, military planning and the political backing that our troops deserve. First, can he assure the House that he believes that our troops are fully trained and fully equipped for whatever they may be asked to do? For example, how will they be protected from chemical and biological threats? What inoculations are being administered to British troops and what reassurances can we give them that there will be no recurrence of the problem known as Gulf war syndrome?
	What protection will our troops have from the missiles that we suspect Saddam still has given that the United Kingdom has no theatre missile defence capability of our own? Are our troops fully equipped to operate with the United States forces, and particularly with US strike aircraft? Electronic identification friend-or-foe equipment is already fitted to US tanks and armour to prevent so-called friendly-fire accidents. Will the Secretary of State consider buying the same off the shelf so that it can be bolted on to British fighting vehicles? Given the problems with the Clansman radio system, will our fighting vehicles have reliable communications?
	On training, have any of the troops now being deployed had their front-line training interrupted by the fire dispute and have all units, such as 16 Air Assault Brigade, now been relieved of any firefighting duties so that they can concentrate on their front-line training? In passing, may I support the Secretary of State's view, as reported in the Sunday newspapers, that the additional burden of the fire dispute is simply becoming unacceptable?
	Secondly, is there now a clear plan for possible military action? In that plan, who will be the overall British force commander for British land, sea and air forces? Will he be given the same discretion to operate under US command as was given to the British commander in the last Gulf war and to the British commander for combat operations in Afghanistan last year? If there are differences, can the Secretary of State say what they are?
	Although the overall objective remains the disarmament of Saddam Hussein, can the Secretary of State clarify what that means in military terms? In particular, if Saddam's regime collapses or if he flees Iraq, what sort of Government does the Secretary of State envisage taking its place? What role will UK forces play in support of that Government? That raises the question of how long he envisages that the UK could maintain this very substantial commitment that he has now announced, particularly if military action is protracted or delayed. Is he satisfied that UK forces have sustainable logistical and medical support?
	In formulating any plans, has the Secretary of State had full discussion with his counterpart at the Department for International Development about the eventuality of war, so that there are also plans in place for humanitarian relief and refugee support? When can we expect a statement from the Secretary of State for International Development?
	Thirdly, will the Secretary of State agree that those of us who believe in the justness of this cause must continue to make the case for the disarmament of Saddam? War is by no means inevitable but, if we are to ask our troops possibly to risk their lives, they need to be certain that the nation is behind them. I am sure that the House will keep them and their families in our thoughts in the weeks ahead.

Geoff Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his unqualified support. I shall try to deal with his specific questions in turn. If I fail to address one, I am sure that I can deal with it in subsequent correspondence, which I will place in the Library of the House.
	As for preparations, I do not doubt that our forces are fully and thoroughly prepared to face this kind of operation. Indeed, the training exercise conducted in similar conditions in Oman just over a year ago was obvious preparation for this kind of deployment. A good number of lessons have been learned from that training exercise and are now to be implemented. Without getting into arguments about Gulf war syndrome, may I tell the House again that a key lesson learned about inoculations is that it is not sensible to inflict on our forces a large number of inoculations simultaneously? Preparation in that respect is much better than it was before the Gulf war, and many of the required injections have already been administered.
	As for the missile threat, another question that I have dealt with before, we do not judge that there is an immediate threat to our deployed forces from Saddam Hussein's missiles, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that appropriate action will be taken to deal with the threat as it exists. As for US forces and friendly fire, again a question that I dealt with when I made my last statement, action is in hand to procure the necessary equipment to ensure that the equipment used by our forces is in every way compatible with the equipment that the United States is using. I make exactly the same observation in relation to communications.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's second set of questions, I can assure the House that operational planning continues to evolve. It would not be appropriate to deal with his first two questions, but those matters will be dealt with in due course. As for the length of any commitment, I can assure the House that our forces are well prepared for a substantial commitment should that be required, but equally they can be replaced in position should that be necessary in due course, which is why sustainable logistical and medical support is available for them, bearing in mind the fact that it will be a multinational operation. Inevitably, forces deployed from different countries will provide a degree of mutual assistance in areas in which there are operational shortfalls. Certainly, consideration is being given to aftermath issues and the question of humanitarian relief. Obviously, we will design force packages to ensure that we have soldiers in place who can deal with those issues as and when they arise.
	As for the third issue raised by the hon. Gentleman—political support from the House—our forces will already be aware of the overwhelming support that they have received from right hon. and hon. Members. The Government have indicated their determination that there should be a further debate and, indeed, ultimately a vote at the right time, but I do not intend to say any more about that than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already said.

Colin Breed: May I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who is currently in Kuwait visiting the British troops, and thank the Secretary of State for his usual courtesy in providing an advance copy of his statement?
	When men and women of our armed forces are deployed overseas, we have a duty to support them, and we send them our best wishes for their swift and safe return. As the Secretary of State said, substantial planning is needed to keep a force of this size properly supplied and in position for quite some time. I welcome his assurance that that will be the case. To ensure that the inspectors have all the time necessary to do their work, that force should be in place and, if necessary, replaced. However, can the Secretary of State provide assurance about the command structure for British troops? Could we realistically opt out in the event that the Government chose not to support a US-led invasion? Are our troops significant and operationally necessary for any operation that takes place on a US-led basis? If the Government decided to opt out, would that cause significant problems for any military invasion?
	Lastly, as we have heard plans concerning the Navy and the Army, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what plans there are in respect of RAF squadrons already in the area? What plans exist to retask the RAF for any offensive operations?

Geoff Hoon: Clearly, it is always a matter for a British Prime Minister, the British Cabinet and ultimately, as I have indicated already, Britain's House of Commons to determine when and if British forces are sent into battle. That is not affected by any announcement that I have made today or any arrangement into which the Government may enter from time to time with any ally or any other multinational force. It is always a matter for a British Prime Minister to decide when a British force engages an enemy. Nevertheless, Britain's contribution to any operations is operationally necessary and I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the significant contribution that British forces made in and around Afghanistan in the course of operations there. That was a substantial contribution and one which, if military action is necessary, will be repeated in relation to Iraq.
	With regard to the Royal Air Force, I have not yet dealt in any detail with its tasking. Those matters are still subject to further discussion, and I will certainly inform the House when and if those decisions have been taken.

Alice Mahon: I am deeply concerned that even more of our troops are being deployed. Whenever the Government say that no decision has been taken to join Bush in his war against Iraq, many of us remain deeply sceptical. Given the demonstrations all over the world this weekend, I think that the people of this country do, also. Does the Secretary of State accept that the UN charter as it is currently constituted does not allow for a pre-emptive or offensive strike against another United Nations country that is not threatening anybody? No matter how many resolutions the US bullies and intimidates other countries into supporting, that remains the case. Will the Secretary of State accept that his Government have not made the case for a war against Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept my hon. Friend's assertion in conclusion. I assure her that no decision has been taken here, in the United States or anywhere else to use military force against Iraq, but as I indicated, it has been our experience that the credible threat of the use of military force is necessary to coerce Saddam Hussein into accepting the will of the international community.
	Since the United Kingdom and other nations have accepted the need for a United Nations process, that process continues. The issue that my hon. Friend raises in relation to the United Nations charter does not arise at this stage, although I remind her that the UN charter does allow for self-defence, and pre-emptive action is no more than modern jargon to deal with the ancient right of self-defence. There are other circumstances recognised in international law—for example, the humanitarian action that was taken in Kosovo—that are justified in international law. I do not accept what my hon. Friend said, but I emphasise to right hon. and hon. Members that the Government are determined that there should be a process that rests on international law and carries with it the great support of the British people.

Douglas Hogg: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should be careful not to invest the Security Council with undue moral authority? The Security Council is but a political institution, and resolutions of the Security Council are but political statements by a political institution. While it is perfectly true that such resolutions are a necessary precondition to war, they cannot make just or moral a war which otherwise is not.

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept that the Security Council would take a decision in relation to the use of military force that was neither just nor moral. As I have indicated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman before, nor do I accept that it would take a decision that was contrary to international law. I believe that it is important that we give the current process the opportunity of reaching its conclusion. I hope that that would be a peaceful conclusion, but it is necessary that we support that process with a credible use of the threat of force.

John Smith: This is a formidable force package. If it is to be used in a war, it will be an allied war. Is my right hon. Friend aware whether similar force packages have been announced or are about to be announced by other allied countries?

Geoff Hoon: As I told the House the week before last, the United States has made a request to some 50 countries for a military contribution. I know that a number of countries have already responded positively. Clearly, the United States has already deployed a very considerable force to the Gulf region, and I anticipate that other countries will follow suit in due course.

Patrick Mercer: The Secretary of State has already indicated that about a quarter of the Army's strength will be in the Gulf and that, for very understandable reasons, its commitment there will be open-ended. He has also commented on the fact that, if necessary, those personnel will be replaced in order to sustain that presence. In that case, will he be kind enough to comment on the wisdom of a suspension of a large part of the Army's recruitment effort this year?

Geoff Hoon: The "suspension", as the hon. Gentleman describes it, is a short-term postponement of a number of young men and women's opportunities to start training. The reason for that is an excellent one, as I am sure he is well aware: recruitment this year has been so successful that it has filled up all the available places, so those who applied rather later in the day will have to wait a short time before their training can begin. That is excellent news for the Army, as the numbers are increasing.

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I welcome the continued and steady build-up of troops, which sends what we recognise to be the only message that Saddam Hussein understands? On the basis that alternative end games that can avoid war may be played out, how feasible is it to hold those troops in position in readiness and to redeploy them outside the area, should an alternative solution beyond war be found?

Geoff Hoon: I described the package as balanced and flexible; it will be sufficiently so to allow for perfectly reasonable scenarios that might not, as we would hope, involve the use of military force in the way in which all of us fear may be necessary. We are certainly alive to the results that might occur other than the use of force.

Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State has now announced the deployment of 29,000 soldiers and commandos, plus the naval element and whatever the Air Force element is. In addition to ongoing operational deployments in Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Bosnia, it cannot possibly be in the public interest that 20,000 further servicemen be kept on stand-by to cover for potentially striking firemen. Has he informed the Attorney-General—and if not, will he do so—that it is not in the public interest that that should remain the case?

Geoff Hoon: I can think of nothing that is more in the public interest than that about 19,000 members of the armed forces should be available to fight fires in the event of a strike.

Tam Dalyell: In reply to the Opposition spokesman, the Defence Secretary used the phrase "the right time" for a parliamentary debate. Is the right time before or after a commitment of forces? As one who wore the epaulettes of 7 Armoured Brigade for two years, may I ask how he replies to General Cordingley, who is now very critical of what the Government are doing and who commanded in the Gulf last time, and the many others who have asked what the military objective of the operation is?
	Finally, given that the American imperative is to keep down the number of bodybags, which means massive bombing before any ground operations, what is the British Government's attitude to massive bombing that will lead to collateral damage, by which we mean thousands of innocent deaths?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt with the question about the right time for a parliamentary debate. He said that it was obviously before the commitment of any forces, if possible. However, he also said that it was crucial not to signal in advance the timing of any military operation. He therefore accepted the need for some caution on timing. That remains the Government's position.
	The military objective is also clear: to uphold the will of the international community, as expressed in a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions. I emphasise the point in my statement about the need to support the political and diplomatic process with a credible threat of the use of force. That remains the Government's position.
	I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that no decisions have been made about any sort of military force. However, any bombing campaign would remain firmly within the bounds of international law.

Hugh Robertson: May I add my support for the deployment? I am sure that all hon. Members hope that war will be avoided, but it is surely sensible to apply the maximum strategic coercion in support of the United Nations resolution. Can the Secretary of State confirm today to which country or countries the force will deploy? What assessment has been made of the terrorist threat during the deployment phase?

Geoff Hoon: It would not be sensible for me to be as specific as the hon. Gentleman might like on the destination of any part of the force package. However, I assure him that proper steps will be taken to assess the terrorist threat and the appropriate action to deal with it.

Ann Cryer: Could my right hon. Friend hazard a guess about the number of weapons of mass destruction that would have to be found before a clear and credible threat of force becomes a force to kill?

Geoff Hoon: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I believe that she has the issue the wrong way around. It is a not question of identifying the number of weapons of mass destruction that would have to be found, but of upholding the clear terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 1441. That gave Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq the final opportunity to comply with the international community's wishes. I know that my hon. Friend strongly supports that.
	The resolution also gave Saddam Hussein an opportunity to declare existing holdings of weapons of mass destruction. He purported to do that in some 11,000 pages of documentation, which were issued shortly before Christmas. It is unfortunate for the international community that the document did not disclose several significant items, some of which are now being revealed.

Bob Russell: May I advise the Secretary of State that I have detected no enthusiasm among Colchester's civilian population for the Government's proposed action in Iraq? There is hardly dancing in the streets. However, if 16 Air Assault Brigade is called upon to go to war, I have every confidence that the population will give its total support.
	Have 16 Air Assault Brigade's preparations been diluted and interrupted by participation in firefighting measures?

Geoff Hoon: No one, least of all anyone in the Ministry of Defence, is enthusiastic about the need for military action. I assure all hon. Members that it is a last resort, which must be used only when all other political and diplomatic routes are exhausted. In contrast to the hon. Gentleman, I find strong support for the Government's position. The population of the United Kingdom backs the need to uphold the international community's decisions as expressed in United Nations Security Council resolutions. They recognise that we must deal with the threat that Iraq poses. On the preparatory measures, I am not aware that they have been in any way affected by the need to deploy on Operation Fresco to fight fires. Indeed, we took a decision to allow 16 Air Assault Brigade to withdraw from that operation in stages so that it would have the time fully to prepare for any contingencies in relation to military operations in Iraq.

Glenda Jackson: As no material breach of resolution 1441 has been presented to the United Nations by the weapons inspectors, does not my right hon. Friend's statement today that the movement of British troops is a contingency and not a commitment ring very hollow indeed? Is not the movement of troops taking place because ground troops will not be able to engage in military action after the end of February or the beginning of March because the weather will become too inclement? Has not a decision to engage in military action indeed been taken?

Geoff Hoon: As the resolution itself makes clear, the question of what is or is not a material breach is a matter for the weapons inspectors, following their report to the Security Council and the discussion in the Security Council that will be required thereafter. That is all set out clearly in resolution 1441. I can therefore assure my hon. Friend, as I assure the House, that no specific decision has been taken about the use of this force, but, unless that force is prepared and made available, we would not be in a position to take military action, should it subsequently be required. As I have said to the House before, the weather is not a factor in this regard.

Elfyn Llwyd: I would have liked to thank the right hon. Gentleman for providing an advance copy of his statement, but, unfortunately, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party were not allowed to have an advance copy. I wonder whether that is an extension of the Prime Minister's pique from last Wednesday. In any event, the Secretary of State has gone out of his way to say that war is not inevitable. Committing 30,000 ground troops, however, smacks of inevitability. Has he taken into account the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency has said that the inspections might take up to a year? If so, has he made any contingency plans for the replacement of troops, home leave, and so on?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the possible length of the inspections. However, he also needs to note the provision in resolution 1441 that states that the inspectors can return to the Security Council at any stage in the process. In those circumstances, it is obviously necessary for us to have available the military force that could be required to enforce the terms of the resolution. If we did not take the decisions that I have announced today, we would not be in that position. We cannot, therefore, wait for the year that the hon. Gentleman's question implies might be necessary, if the inspectors return to the Security Council at an earlier stage to indicate their concerns.

Ronnie Campbell: How much extra pay will our armed forces get in a conflict such as this? After all, they are putting their lives on the line.

Geoff Hoon: Significant allowances are available to our armed forces when they are deployed. It would not be appropriate for me to go into detail about them at this stage, simply because they depend on the length of any deployment and the time spent away from home. Equally, as right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, we are likely in the short term to receive a report from the armed forces pay review body, stating its recommendations on pay increases for the forthcoming financial year.

John Wilkinson: In his statement, the Secretary of State made it clear that there would be a requirement for the call-up of reservists to support the deployment, but he could not say how many or when. Is that because the Reserve Forces Act 1996 is deficient in ensuring that reservists' jobs are maintained while they are called up? Secondly, on air deployment, will the Ministry of Defence need to have recourse to civil air assets—in particular, high-volume aeroplanes such as the Antonov—to augment the C-5 Galaxies?

Geoff Hoon: I am not aware of any specific deficiency in the Act, and that certainly was not the reason for my caution in setting out numbers. On the last occasion that I addressed the House, I said that, at that stage, we were looking to issue sufficient notices to involve about 1,500 members of the reserve forces. Obviously, that figure is likely to increase, but it is not likely to increase to the level speculated in the newspapers. I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I assure other Members of the House, that when a more specific figure is available I shall ensure that those details are made known to the House. We have already used certain civilian aircraft for transport purposes, and I anticipate that that will continue when and if it is necessary to deploy those forces to the region.

Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, other options can be pursued alongside the threat of military force. One of those, for which I have pressed repeatedly in the House over a number of years, is indicting the Iraqi regime for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary say that they want to do that, and more than 200 MPs from both sides of the House of Commons have said that they want to see it done.
	Today, I received a letter from the Attorney-General, who, two and a half years later, is still exploring what can be done. He says that his office, along with the police and counsel, are exploring how they can indict members of the regime. As my right hon. Friend knows, they have the evidence—it was given to them two and a half years ago. If we were using that evidence and if we had arrest warrants, people such as Ali Hassan al-Majeed, who are in Damascus at present, could be arrested for killing 100,000 Kurds and for gassing the Kurds at Halabja. Why on earth are the Government not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Lady, but that does not relate directly to the statement.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has raised that issue with me on a number of occasions, and she lists the other members of the Government whom she has addressed on the same question. We all admire her determination and, indeed, the principle of what she is setting out, but there is obviously a need for further consideration of whether what she recommends is practically possible and whether it would achieve anything. I rather thought that her answer from the Attorney-General was quite encouraging in that sense. What she advocates is sensible, but it obviously requires further practical consideration.

Mike Hancock: While the deployment will obviously send out a positive message to our allies and, I hope, a message of determination to the Saddam regime, what message does the Secretary of State imagine it will send to the people of Iraq? Is he satisfied that enough is being spent by the US and UK Governments in telling the people of Iraq the true position and what problems they face? Is he also satisfied that our troops, while protected against the possibility of a missile attack, are satisfactorily protected against biochemical or biological warfare being waged against them in the early stages of their deployment?

Geoff Hoon: Let me make it clear that the Government—and, I anticipate, no other Government—have any quarrel whatever with the people of Iraq. It may be that the only Government with any serious difficulty with the people of Iraq are the Iraqi regime led by Saddam Hussein, who have perpetrated unspeakable horrors on them over many years. Indeed, there is growing evidence to show that the people of Iraq are sick and tired of Saddam Hussein and are ready for a change. That is clearly anticipated by resolution 1441, but it is important that we continue to maintain the pressure on the regime and those who support them without in any way causing unnecessary difficulty for the people of Iraq.

Peter Kilfoyle: All of us in the House recognise the professionalism and dedication of our armed forces, but, given what the Secretary of State called the massive deployment of American forces in the Gulf area and, in particular, the commitment over the weekend of more American divisions—armoured, airborne and infantry—will he tell the House what, specifically, those units add to the capability of the massive force already assembled in the Gulf; or do they simply provide political credibility for that American force?

Geoff Hoon: In the planning of any multinational operation, it is always necessary to identify the contribution that individual countries can best make. It may help my hon. Friend if he considered carefully the contribution that British forces were able to make in military operations in and around Afghanistan, when exactly the same question could have been asked. British forces provided some excellent assistance to American forces in areas where the Americans required that extra assistance. Should military action be necessary in Iraq, the same principle will apply.

Angus Robertson: Bearing in mind the role that air power plays in modern warfare and the fact that a high proportion of air service personnel are on 10-day stand-by notices, could the Secretary of State give some certainty to those personnel and their families by telling the House when a statement will be made on any air deployment?

Geoff Hoon: I cannot give a specific date. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that air power can be deployed at much shorter notice than the force that I have set out to the House today. Certainly, the deployment of air power is under active consideration, including the impact on the Royal Air Force and the decisions that will need to be taken in conjunction with our allies.

Win Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no British troops will be used in an invasion of Iraq unless the weapons inspectors have reported back to the United Nations that a material breach has taken place, and the Security Council, having failed to persuade Saddam Hussein to resolve this matter peacefully, makes a decision about what military action is appropriate?

Geoff Hoon: I can assure the House that the process set out in Security Council resolution 1441 will be followed.

John Lyons: If the UN Security Council decides not to take military action over Iraq, will we accept that decision?

Geoff Hoon: That is a matter for the United Nations Security Council and its individual members. That decision has yet to be taken.

George Foulkes: Did the Defence Secretary know that Kofi Annan said that it was the credible threat of force that had forced Saddam Hussein to allow in the weapons inspectors? Did he also hear Tony Benn on the "Today" programme, who, when asked whether he would support the deployment of force if there were a proven material breach and a second UN Security Council resolution, refused to answer three times? Have the critics who find it so easy to criticise the Government suggested to him an alternative way of disarming the murderous dictator?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's observations, not least about what Kofi Annan has said on a number of occasions. What unites all Members of the House is the need for the support of United Nations Security Council resolutions. It is important that all right hon. and hon. Members of the House and any critics outside recognise that, if the United Nations process is to mean anything, its decisions must be upheld and enforced.

Harry Cohen: President Bush senior stopped the first Gulf war when the killing went above 100,000. Is there to be no limit to the turkey shoot this time? The United Nations has said that there are likely to be some 900,000 refugees in the event of war. What would be the policy of UK and US troops if those refugees were in the way of their push towards central Baghdad?

Geoff Hoon: No decision has been taken on the use of military force. I should make it clear to my hon. Friend that it is necessary to prepare for all contingencies. We cannot assume that military action will be easy and straightforward. We are potentially committing people to difficult and dangerous operations, and we must have regard to their safety and security while respecting the rules of international law that govern such deployments.

Paul Flynn: What proof has the Secretary of State found of collaboration between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda?

Geoff Hoon: We are aware of some contact between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda over a number of years, but as I have made clear to the House on several occasions, there is no evidence to link the Iraqi regime to the appalling events of 11 September.

Bernard Jenkin: We thank the Secretary of State for the answers he has been able to give, and recognise that there are some that he cannot give. He is, however, aware of the old adage that sweat saves blood, and he has failed to reassure us that none of the units now being deployed on this operation has been withdrawn from Operation Fresco. Can he assure us that none of the units being deployed is likely to be drawn on for firefighting duties?

Geoff Hoon: I said that 16 Air Assault Brigade, for example, would be withdrawn from Operation Fresco in stages. I made that very clear. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House, however, that it will be properly prepared for any military action, should that subsequently be required.

Points of Order

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, Mr. Speaker has often expressed his disapproval when Ministers have made important statements to the press before the House has been notified. In the case of the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence, the House was the last to be told. The statement was widely trailed in the Sunday newspapers and in today's media. This appears to be a recurring pattern with the current Secretary of State.
	I do not know whether the leaks are motivated by vanity, or whether they result from incompetence or from a lack of respect for the House; but this is now occurring, if not daily, almost twice weekly. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, convey to Mr. Speaker our anger about the fact that Ministers still seem more obsessed with spinning in the press than with reporting to the House? Will you ask him to look again at the problem, and see what action can be taken to halt this deplorable practice?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to that entirely scurrilous observation from the Opposition Front Bench—

Greg Knight: It is in The Sunday Telegraph.

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman refers from a sedentary position to The Sunday Telegraph, in which an interview with me appeared. If, rather than making generalised observations that anyone can come to the Dispatch Box and make, he can give specific examples of specific involvement in the practice on the part of Ministers, I assure him that they will be properly investigated. Instead of coming along and making this kind of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but this is developing into a debate, and I think I should respond.

Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order in a moment. I must deal with this one first, unless the hon. Gentleman's is further to it.
	The point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) will be on the record. Mr. Speaker is well aware of the matters to which he has referred, and is deeply concerned about them. I understand that he intends to take them up with the Ministers concerned.

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I raise a matter that extends beyond my interests, about which I have written Mr. Speaker a four-page letter?
	On Friday, there appeared on the Order Paper Question 10, in my name, asking the Home Secretary if he would place in the Library unrestricted information about ricin from the laboratory of the Government Chemist. I displayed a legitimate interest in ricin. I asked the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology—my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson)—about the matter, and we agreed that we would ask about the actions of the laboratory of the Government Chemist. That was accepted by the Table Office, on condition that I was careful about supplementary questions because of sub judice rules. It was deemed a legitimate question. On Friday, I was rung up by the Home Office, by a Miss Anna Michael, to be told somewhat cavalierly that my question had been transferred to the Department of Health. I queried that and asked her to check it. The question was taken off the Order Paper and transferred not to the Department of Health, but to the Ministry of Defence on the ground that the work on ricin was done at Porton Down.
	I concede that most of the work is done at Porton Down but I assert that, albeit that the laboratory of the Government Chemist is now privatised, there is constant reaction and relationship between the Home Office and the laboratory of the Government Chemist, which is quite proper. I also assert that certain personnel in the laboratory of the Government Chemist were perfectly properly consulted.
	In those circumstances, is it right that a question, Question 10, which would certainly have been reached, is just taken off the Order Paper on the basis, frankly, of decisions by fairly junior civil servants? I ask for your protection in this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand completely the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. I am sorry that he lost his place in the list of questions for today but it is a long-standing principle that decisions about the transfer of questions rest with Ministers and are not matters in which the Chair seeks to intervene.

Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you can be helpful in this matter. I am sure that you will be. You will have observed over the weekend the many demonstrations, not only in this country but throughout the world, against a possible invasion in Iraq. Tomorrow, there will be lobbying of this House by people who are deeply concerned about a possible invasion and our participation in it. Today, yet again, a Secretary of State refused to say whether we could have a debate in the House and indeed a vote—[Interruption.] Well, the Secretary of State certainly evaded the question of whether we go to war against Iraq. Last—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I well understand the points that the hon. Lady is seeking to make. They have already been well aired and are perhaps matters that she could raise at other times in other places. It is certainly not a point of order for the Chair at this time.

Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have dealt adequately with that point of order. We must now move on.

Tam Dalyell: On an entirely different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that it is a different point of order? I do not want to deal further with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

Tam Dalyell: It is a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House passed a devolution Bill and part of the understanding of the devolution Bill was that the Scottish Parliament would not discuss matters reserved to Westminster. I understand why the Scottish Parliament had a debate and a substantive vote on Thursday on Iraq but could Mr. Speaker reflect on the issues that are involved in this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have heard sufficient to be able to deal with the point of order that the hon. Gentleman is raising. The matters that are raised, discussed, debated and voted on in the Scottish Parliament are not a matter for the Chair of this House.

Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that and I am not going to deal with it any more this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[3rd Allotted Day]

Occupational Pensions

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Oliver Heald: I beg to move,
	That this House expresses its deep concern at current arrangements for winding-up occupational pension schemes, which leave many people receiving much less than expected for their retirement; deplores the lack of action by the Government to address this issue; notes that present workers near to retirement after long service with the employer often receive less than those who retired early after less service; recognises the great urgency of the issue because of the large number of schemes now moving towards wind-up; welcomes the proposals in the National Association of Pension Funds document, Pensions—Plain and Simple, for a possible new schedule of priorities on winding-up a final salary scheme with an insolvent employer; further notes that the Government in its Green Paper, Simplicity, Security and Choice, was prepared to consider such a measure; further notes that there is widespread support in Parliament for such changes; and urges the Government to take early action to address the crisis and speedily to introduce new winding-up priorities which take proper account of the age and length of service of non-retired scheme members.
	It may be for the convenience of hon. Members on both sides of the House if I say that we intend to split the time that remains equally, and conclude the first Opposition day debate by about 7.30 pm.
	The debate could not be more timely, because we face a wide-ranging crisis in the world of pensions. It is a crisis about the incentives to save, which has led to an estimated gap in savings of £27 billion; it is a crisis of increasing costs to pension funds; it is a crisis of confidence in the Government and employers; and above all, it is a crisis of escalating closures and wind-ups of pension schemes. Even when the wind-ups occur, there is a crisis of unfairness in the way that the assets of pension funds are shared. However, what the Government are offering is yet another Green Paper and yet another consultation. Today, we are asking for urgent action, but in one area alone.
	This debate is about particular proposals for reform to achieve the fairer sharing of assets when occupational pension schemes are wound up—proposals that command considerable support in the House. Do we really have to wait perhaps for years, when this change could be made speedily?

Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman says that we should not have more debate, and that we should get on with the business of bringing relief to those of our constituents who are being affected adversely by the winding up of their pension schemes. Is he not aware that I have a Bill before the House on the winding up of pension schemes? If the Opposition are so keen, why do they not adopt that Bill and use some of their time to advance it through this House?

Oliver Heald: The right hon. Gentleman is constructive in this area, and I am always very happy to discuss with him detailed proposals that will help those throughout this country who are involved in pension schemes. Equally, I hope that he will help us by canvassing the Government's support for what I am proposing today.

Frank Field: rose—

Oliver Heald: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall outline what we are talking about a little more fully.
	The vast majority of problems have arisen where final salary schemes are being wound up and the employer is in liquidation. Of course, there are also cases where solvent employers are winding up, and I shall deal with cases such as Maersk later in my remarks. However, it is in cases involving liquidation and a forced wind-up where the problem is perhaps most acutely felt. The rights of pensioners who are already receiving their pensions, including their right to receive future increases in pensions, are placed above the accrued rights of continuing workers, however long they have been with the employer. So employees who are approaching retirement find that they will receive only a fraction of the pension that they were expecting.
	Of course, it is true to say that all future pensions would be paid in full if there were enough money in the scheme, but the pension schemes of insolvent employers are all too often underfunded. The importance of this issue was shown through the recent experience of Allied Steel and Wire, which went into receivership on 10 July last year. Within days, on 18 July, it was announced that the pension schemes for the Cardiff and Sheerness plants were to be wound up. The operation of the priority rules—putting those pensions in payment first—meant that many employees of long service at both Cardiff and Sheerness were told to expect pitifully low levels of pension: 15 or 16 per cent. at Cardiff, and no more than about 50 per cent. at Sheerness.
	The plight of ASW's workers has touched the hearts of people throughout the country, particularly following the "Panorama" programme "How Safe is your Pension?", which was aired on 17 November last year.

Kevin Brennan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, as the MP for Cardiff, West, I am well aware of the issues that he raises. Does he agree that, in addition to examining the rules governing the way in which the pension fund is distributed on wind-up, we should also look at the role of the independent trustee? Do the hon. Gentleman's proposals include putting a cap on the percentage of fees that the independent trustee pays himself on the winding up of pension schemes?

Oliver Heald: I certainly agree that there is concern about that. Reports have shown that substantial fees are being charged by professionals. We should consider that to see whether we can find a way of lowering those costs. What I am trying to do in this short Opposition day debate, however, is to urge the Government to deal quickly and discretely with a small matter, so that the worst excesses of the problem at ASW do not happen again in the coming months while the Government consult at leisure on their Green Paper.
	The "Panorama" programme highlighted the experience of John Benson, who described coming home to his wife to tell her that he had lost his job, thinking that his pension was safe, and then about 10 days later having to tell her that in fact he was only to get a tiny part of his pension and that the family were in trouble. He did not understand why he had ended up in that situation.
	The Mail on Sunday highlighted the situation of Bernie Tarpar, aged 54, who has 28 years service at Sheerness. He is a technician who hoped to retire at 62, with over 35 years service by then, and to receive about half his salary in pension and have a lump sum with which to visit his family in Australia. He said that he felt bitterly let down. He said:
	"Over the years we have shown great loyalty to our employer, who has rewarded us with good pay. But the winding-up of our pensions leaves us devastated and extremely worried."
	I have had letters from hard-pressed ASW victims, as other hon. Members will have done, and I have had the opportunity to talk to several of them. I know that the Minister has met John Hayter, to whom I have spoken. He is 58 and has been in the scheme for 28 years. He expected to retire on half salary, but he has been told that he will get half of that. He said:
	"We have followed the rules all the way along and then bang—it is taken away . . . They never said my pension might not be safe, not once."

Steve Webb: I have a lot of sympathy with the cases that the hon. Gentleman raises. Does he accept, however, as we must all accept, that we are dealing with a pot of money that is inadequate to pay everybody, and unless more money is made available, the flipside of paying more to the people whom he describes, who have suffered badly, is to pay less to retired pensioners? Does he accept that that would create new uncertainty for those who have already retired? Is he saying that if the Conservatives returned to office, everybody drawing an occupational pension from a private company would be at risk of having their pension cut if the firm went into liquidation?

Oliver Heald: I am about to outline what we are proposing. There is an issue of justice. Somebody who has worked for longer than they planned to, perhaps because they have been asked to do so to allow the company to restructure or to move into administration, can receive far less—half their pension or less—than a person who worked for fewer years and retired early. As I shall make clear in a moment, there are cases in which directors seem to have retired in a remarkably prescient way, taking millions of pounds from the scheme ahead of a change. I shall develop my argument, and I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to intervene if he thinks that there is anything unjust about it.
	There are other such cases, such as that of British Federal, where the scheme has a shortfall of £2 million. The National Association of Pension Funds warns us that a large number of schemes are moving towards wind-up. In many cases, existing pensioners are safeguarded, as are rises in their pensions, but employees, who may have longer service, may receive half their pension or less. It is often said that the best workers, those who are vitally needed in the company, suffer most. We hear anecdotally that some of those workers are even encouraged not to retire.
	Why are pension funds so underfunded? There is no doubt that a key factor is the loss of £5 billion a year, taken from funds by the Chancellor in extra taxes after he scrapped the dividend tax credits. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants made a point that is not boring, even though I notice that some Labour Members are yawning because they have heard these things so many times before. They will hear them many more times. The association stated:
	"The withdrawal of the tax credit is, in our view, the most important single contributory factor in the problems that currently afflict . . . schemes."
	The CBI makes the same point. David Rosser, its Welsh director, said:
	"The Government put us in this mess by taking out, through taxation, £5 billion a year from company pension schemes."
	Ken Jackson, a union leader, said the same thing a year ago. The London chambers of commerce have said it.

Bill Tynan: rose—

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman say it?

Bill Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Do the Opposition have any plans to restore the tax dividend?

Oliver Heald: The disincentives to save—[Hon. Members: "Answer the question".] I shall answer the question. The disincentives to save have been described as massive by many people throughout the pensions world. They are caused by the widespread extension of means-testing. The first thing to do is try to find a way of removing some of the disincentives to save. Employers who might be considering investing in a pension scheme know that employees earning less than £20,000 would receive the same amount through means-tested benefits, so what would be the point of them saving for their employees? There are massive disincentives.
	I agree, however, that we need to consider incentives for employers to save in pension schemes. We are actively looking into that—the sad thing is that the Government are not. They have taken £5 billion a year out of the schemes so less money is available, while at the same time they have widened means-testing so that there are massive disincentives to save. A consensus on how to proceed is emerging in the pensions world—on how to simplify the system and provide greater incentives to save and to remove some of the disincentives. But what are the Government doing? They sit by complacently and are not even prepared to discuss the matter.

George Foulkes: There is a genuine problem; it is faced by my constituents who work for United Engineering Forgings. No one is more sympathetic to their plight than my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions. Would not the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) better serve my constituents and all those affected if he made constructive proposals instead of party political capital?

Oliver Heald: On an Opposition day, the right hon. Gentleman must excuse me for replying to an intervention. After all, he often does so.
	We are making constructive proposals—that is exactly what I am doing—but it is right to record why we are in such a mess. It is the Government's fault. They introduced a tax that takes £5 billion a year. They have weakened protection for workers by reducing the minimum funding requirement. Actuaries say that it was the decision to relax MFR by 8 per cent. in March 2002 that led to Maersk's decision to close its pension scheme, a point to which I shall return later.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Oliver Heald: I have given way several times and I want to continue with my speech.
	There are other reasons why it is more expensive to buy the deferred annuities necessary to secure the liabilities on wind-up. Assumptions about how long people will live have increased and the cost of index-linked gilts has risen as yields have fallen, yet the Government have failed to explain any of that to the public. If interest rates fall, the cost of providing a pension rises. The failure to point out those consequences meant that few if any pension scheme members have been aware of the new-found fragility of their pensions. As a result, they have been unable to take action to deal with the situation. The effect is dramatic. In 1997, the MFR was adequate on wind-up to buy between 80 per cent. of the accrued pension for a 40-year-old still working for a company and as much as 95 per cent. for a 60-year-old. That has now been reduced to less than half.
	Even some solvent companies are moving to wind up their pension funds. One deplores their decision. It is one thing if the choice is between the company's future existence or its pension scheme, but in some cases the choice is purely commercial—which the Government have encouraged by their negligence. It is wrong and short-sighted for a company to turn its back on long-standing employees when it is possible to continue its pension fund. Some people say that a pension is just deferred pay, but to many there is an obligation upon an employer to ensure that people who give their working lives to a company are not without the resources needed in their retirement.

Dave Watts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the main cause of problems in the pensions industry is the underperformance of the market and the economy? Does he further agree that one of the reasons for deficits is that many companies took long pension contribution holidays, from which they benefited at the time, but are now unwilling to put in the resources needed?

Oliver Heald: That will not do. The Government tell us time and time again how wonderfully the economy is performing, but when pensions are in such a mess as a direct result of the actions of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Government blame the economy. Some of the reasons for pensions being in crisis are external to the Government, but the most significant factor, according to experts, is the Chancellor's decision to increase the tax by as much as he did.

Terry Rooney: rose—

Oliver Heald: I will not give way immediately. I want to move on to another important aspect.
	Two ASW directors were allegedly paid packages valued at £2 million from the pension fund in the year prior to wind-up. Whatever the individual circumstances at ASW, there is widespread concern that directors with detailed inside knowledge can choose their moment to retire, while workers who continue in employment—sometimes at the behest of those very directors—may be left with only a fraction of their expected future pensions.
	The National Association of Pension Funds' proposals aim at providing better protection for scheme members nearing retirement when an employer goes into liquidation. They also tackle the problem of directors who retire just before wind-up, by treating all members who have retired in the past year in the same way as those nearing retirement. The proposals would give priority to pensioners in payment but only at up to 90 per cent. of the current level, then to those expected to retire in the next 10 years, who would receive a 75 per cent. pension, and then others. While pensioners in payment would receive a little less and those who continue to work in the company less still, such a scheme would be much better, much fairer and much more just.
	It may be that the Government have other proposals, but that suggested change would not prejudice any of them as it would apply only to wind-ups after the proposals have been introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has written to the Secretary of State offering our full co-operation in ensuring the prompt passage of legislation to change the priority order. We would like to co-operate with the Government to achieve an early outcome.
	The NAPF emphasises the urgency of such reform in its briefing for this debate which states:
	"The NAPF urges the Government to take early action to take the winding-up priorities through new regulations."
	The association points out that it is not necessary to wait for the redesign of the MFR replacement and adds:
	"We consider that this issue is urgent because of the large number of schemes now moving to wind-up."
	The Government, in their recent Green Paper, have proposed other suggestions for consultation, but none of those ideas would be prejudiced by that. The Government have played a part in creating the crisis, and the measures that we propose for emergency action would save future pension scheme members some of the agony suffered by ASW and other members, whose plight I have been highlighting.

Frank Field: May I return to the point that I made earlier? I know that Oppositions have never done this in the past, but there is nothing in the Standing Orders of the House that would prevent the Opposition from using some of their Opposition time to introduce their own measures. If this is so important, why does not the hon. Gentleman introduce his proposals or back those that I am putting forward?

Oliver Heald: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair enough point, but surely I ought to try to persuade the Minister first. The Government have most of the time available to the House, so they can act with dispatch. The trouble is that they will not. They sit around twiddling their thumbs, producing for consultation measures that we have seen time and again before. There have been 26 consultation exercises, as the right hon. Gentleman says—he agrees with me about that. Surely we should get on to the Government and say, as I am doing, that we should act now.

Barry Gardiner: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says about changing the priority order, but does he accept that raising the priority of pensioners subordinates the priority of the debt? Banks therefore run an increased risk and the cost of capital will go up, so those companies could be put under even greater pressure, forcing them into liquidation earlier. All that may cause even more problems that the hon. Gentleman seeks to solve.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but it is not relevant to this proposal, under which the money available to a pension fund should be split up differently, so that working members of the scheme do not end up being so cruelly disadvantaged as they have been in incidents such as that involving ASW. The Government are consulting on another proposal, under which the debt owed by the employer to meet the pension fund liabilities should have a higher priority. That proposal deserves serious consideration, but it is slightly different and the Minister will have heard the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.
	The crisis in pensions is wide-ranging. There is a lack of incentive to save, caused by Government action in extending means-tested benefits. At the same time, there is a crisis of increased costs for pension funds, caused by the Chancellor's tax increase on those funds. There is a lack of confidence, with the recent YouGov survey showing that just 4 per cent. of people in Britain trust the Government to keep their word on pensions. It is crisis of escalating closures, which have doubled in the past year according to the NAPF—it is warning of many new wind-ups—but this debate is about the crisis of fairness in wind-up arrangements. We may not be able to solve all the problems immediately, but the Government can act.

Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman is pressing the Government to introduce proposals on the differing range of priorities for pension schemes on wind-up. I accept that such measures are urgent, but would it not sow more confusion to introduce some measures now, while waiting to make further changes until after the Government have consulted on their Green Paper? There is nothing inherently superior in the scheme proposed by the NAPF other than perhaps the priority on which the Government are consulting. Indeed, there would be grave concern about the idea of messing around with existing pensioners' benefits.

Oliver Heald: The point is that the NAPF came forward with these ideas and, on this particular subject, stressed the urgency of this reform. It is true that the Government are consulting on this and several other reforms relating to wind-up, which they are entitled to do, as they are of some complexity. This issue, however, is one of injustice: what happened at ASW needs to be tackled.
	The Opposition are acting constructively. We are promising full support to the Government on this issue. Our motion deplores the lack of action on the issue. We are trying to spur on the Government on behalf of people in this country who have suffered already, and on behalf of those who will suffer if we do not make this change. We want a commitment to action today. I appeal to all hon. Members who care about this issue—and who have seen what happened in the cases of ASW, British Federal and others—for their support to get the Government to act. Let us urge them to action, with no more delays. We want this change now.

Ian McCartney: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to end and to add instead thereof:
	"acknowledges the crucial contribution of the UK tradition of occupational pension provision; welcomes the range of measures in the recent Green Paper to strengthen that tradition and to renew the pensions partnership between employers, employees, the financial services industry and Government; supports, in particular, the promotion of occupational pensions as a means to recruit and to retain good staff through the employer task force and other measures; notes the proposal to give employees the right to be consulted on changes to an employer's pension scheme; further notes the Government's consideration of a range of options to bolster member protection in cases where schemes are wound up, including options for a fairer sharing of assets when schemes close, with more priority for workers closer to retirement or those with more years of contributions; believes that there should be 100 per cent. protection in cases of fraud; supports the appointment of a new proactive regulator to investigate fraud and maladministration; further notes the proposed £150–£200 million administrative savings which will encourage firms to open new schemes and keep existing schemes running; and further welcomes the establishment of the independent Pension Commission to assess how effectively the current voluntarist approach is developing and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on whether there is a case for moving beyond that approach."
	We welcome the opportunity to debate the extremely important issue of security in retirement for working men and women. The Government are already consulting widely about proposals in the Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement", published on 17 December 2002, on which there was a statement in the House. The Green Paper makes it completely clear that, as a Government, we are alert to and concerned about the difficulties that individuals face when their schemes are wound up, either because their employer becomes insolvent or because their employer decides to wind up their pension scheme voluntarily. As part of the process of developing the Green Paper, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) acknowledged, I met a range of employees—and sometimes employees and management—in relation to a variety of schemes, which helped my deliberations in advance of preparing for the Green Paper.
	I also welcome the belated acknowledgement by Opposition Members of the need for some form of consensus on pension policy. I am not sure that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will promote a general consensus, but there has certainly been a move forward in respect of some items raised today, which is to be welcomed. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I confirm receipt of the letter. I am not sure that it arrived before it reached the press, but we have got it. I thank the hon. Gentleman for providing it, and my right hon. Friend will respond in due course. We welcome the capacity of Members to seek consensus on some of these issues.
	Perhaps we will also have an opportunity in this debate to explore issues in relation to security in retirement, which we will deal with in some detail. At the same time, I should like to deal in detail with some of the issues in relation to consensus, as that gives the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and his colleagues the opportunity to provide some insight as to where they will stand in the debate on the Green Paper.

Oliver Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has not heard what I have to say.

Oliver Heald: This is a two-and-a-half-hour debate about the winding-up arrangements. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that we will not have a full day's debate on the Green Paper?

Ian McCartney: Do not be so silly. I have made it absolutely clear that I welcome debates in the House. The Government are committed to respond at the end of the consultation process and to provide opportunities for debate. In the context of the Green Paper, we welcome debate in the House with our colleagues and with Opposition Members. We want as much consensus as possible. Difficult as that may be on occasions, that is what drives us forward in terms of the Green Paper, and, I hope, its eventual outcome and the measures that flow from it.
	In relation to that consensus, the hon. Member for Havant wrote on 7 March last year to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell)—who was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the previous Government—asking for proposals to be brought forward that would mean the privatisation of the basic state pension. He said that he had asked for a short note to be prepared on these issues. I have asked both hon. Gentlemen if they are prepared to put that note in the public domain as part of the process. The hon. Member for Havant has not indicated that that will occur, and the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, who is a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, has said that it is up to the Conservative Front Benchers to decide whether we can have this information. It would be useful if the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire could tell us before the day is out whether his and the Conservative party's review on the funded alternative to the basic state pension is in place. The hon. Member for Havant described in his letter to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield the case for that alternative as a
	"powerful and compelling one which you and I share".
	We have a right to know what Conservative Members mean.
	The protection that people receive if their pension scheme is wound up is very important, and the Government understand why recent events have made the members of some pension schemes question whether that protection is adequate. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire quoted from the letter that the hon. Member for Havant wrote last week to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That letter calls for better protection, in particular through changing the priority order affecting pensioners and scheme members when an insolvent employer is forced to wind up a scheme. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is correct in thinking that such a change could be made by secondary legislation—as indeed could certain changes involving wind-ups by solvent employers, and that is an area where scheme members are more clearly being made to suffer by their employers. However, he has chosen not to mention that point in the debate so far.
	My right hon. Friend will obviously reply to the letter in due course and he will deal with the issues. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and the shadow Secretary of State were leading members of the previous Government and they know how difficult the issues are and why they have arisen. Indeed, the previous Government introduced the current legislation on the minimum funding requirement for scheme funding protection, and they also introduced the current member priority order on wind-up. The problems that my right hon. Friend and I are currently dealing with were created by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, but he did not even say that he was involved in the process of establishing arrangements that he now says—and rightly so—are leading to many people being screwed by their employers. He is responsible for that.

Oliver Heald: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, if circumstances change, one has to change the rules? Will he comment on the figures that I gave from Maersk that show that, in 1997, the minimum funding requirement would have provided between 80 and 95 per cent. funding for a continuing worker. Now the figure is less than 50 per cent.

Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman fails to answer the question. He refers to fluctuations, but he designed the rules to protect workers. However, they have been totally inadequate and have failed to do that. Therefore, the Government have taken steps to start the process of repairing the hon. Gentleman's chronic mistakes.
	I must emphasise that the agenda is currently the subject of widespread consultation. Sensible as it is to soften the current cliff edge of the priority order payments between actual and deferred pensioners, the change that the hon. Gentleman particularly proposes could create losers as well as gainers. We would divide up the same-sized pension fund as before, but in a different way. It might be a fairer way, but it would not give everybody priority treatment. Therefore, we as a Government need to think carefully about the issue and to take account of the views put to us in the consultation process before we act. Throughout the process so far on the minimum fund requirement, we have sought to get consensus from all those involved. That is important on such a complex issue.
	The hon. Gentleman condemned the Government's proposals for the minimum fund requirement. [Interruption.] Yes, he did—he said that they had been criticised and he criticised them. I know that he has only recently been brought back to the Front Bench from the wilderness but, last May, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) initiated a debate on the Occupational Pension Schemes (Minimum Funding Requirement and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002. He said:
	"we welcome this broadly relaxing set of regulations. I hope that that relaxes the Minister and other Labour Members.
	I believe in giving credit where it is due. My contacts in the Engineering Employers Federation, with whom I have dealt on a number of industrial relations matters over the years, refer positively to the regulations, saying that MFR interim reforms are a 'shot in the arm' for defined-benefit schemes. They say that the reforms respond to most of their wishes for the interim consultation order and that they are pleased with them."—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 14 May 2002; c. 3.]
	The Government have tried to sort out the complex muddle created by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and his friends, and we have taken industry with us. Last March, there were a number of changes, including extending the deficit correction periods within which scheme funding must be made good. That was important for employers, as it removed the requirement for annual recertification in schemes that are fully funded on a minimum fund requirement basis. That was important for the security of the fund, introducing stricter conditions when an employer decides to wind up a scheme voluntarily and improving protection for pension scheme members.

James Arbuthnot: The right hon. Gentleman has always taken a close interest in pension issues. I remember that he did so when I was pensions Minister. What points along those lines did he make when those regulations were introduced?

Ian McCartney: I do not believe that I ever discussed those regulations—[Interruption.] I was in fact on the Opposition Front Bench talking about fiddled figures and unemployment. I talked about fat cats when the Tories did not want to introduce the national minimum wage and refused to do anything about youth unemployment. My gaze was therefore on another set of big issues that the Government, thank goodness, have put right.
	One thing is quite clear. Even if the Opposition's decisions were well intended, they were an abysmal failure, and it is the present Government's watch to resolve that problem. At the outset, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said that he wanted consensus. If he took a bit of responsibility for the problem, I would take the consensus thing a bit more seriously.
	We have launched a comprehensive, tiered consultation on the Green Paper proposals.

Oliver Heald: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously denying that the cost of securing pensions has become far more expensive under his Government as yields have fallen? There is far less money to pay for pensions as the Chancellor has taken £5 billion a year in tax, but the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we should leave things as they are and not change them at all. The decisions that we made in 1997 were made on the basis of the facts available at the time, so should he not make some decisions based on today's facts?

Ian McCartney: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to make an incisive point, but he made the same point during his opening remarks and on previous occasions. The abolition of the dividend tax credit, he said, was part of an overall package of reforms. He failed to answer when asked about that, so may I advise him of what the hon. Member for Havant said when asked whether he would reintroduce the dividend credit at the end of last year? In The Observer on 24 November, he said:
	"Actually, I don't think we'll be doing that. Helping pension funds doesn't mean going back to the same system we had before, you know."
	Opposition Members may huff and puff, but they have no intention of making changes. However, we have introduced a new system to encourage long-term investment by employers in the British economy. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire cannot back up his point. Indeed, his party will do nothing about the problem.
	There will be a wide-ranging consultation on the Green Paper with employers, industry experts and the unions, who will be asked about the themes of extending working lives, tax and savings, and the new regulatory approach. In addition, my colleagues and I will hold seminars on a number of specific issues in the Green Paper. There will be technical workshops at which officials and pensions experts will discuss in detail specific changes, and there will be regional events in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at which grassroots views will be sought.

Steve Webb: Much has been said about consensus. At those workshops, it would be useful on a technical level to engage all the Opposition parties. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to extend that invitation to us?

Ian McCartney: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will write to Opposition parties about that, because it is important that we get this right. There is nothing to be gained either intellectually or politically in not involving Opposition parties as far as possible in these complex issues. Having given that commitment, correspondence from my right hon. Friend will be forthcoming.

Chris Grayling: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian McCartney: This is the last occasion. I must get on.

Chris Grayling: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that while that process is taking place, he will make representations to the Treasury to ensure that the Inland Revenue does not continue the process of looking at the specific rules that apply to pension funds and pension providers? That has been revealed in the media on a number of occasions in recent weeks, and the suggestion has clearly been that the Revenue is looking for more, rather than fewer, ways to raise money from pension schemes and pension providers.

Ian McCartney: If the hon. Gentleman has not read the Green Paper, I suggest that he does so. It covers a range of issues of tax simplification, including reducing eight regimes to a single regime. Since the proposals were published on 17 December, they have been welcomed by employers and trade unions alike.
	It is important that we hold events involving community organisations at local level. Those will be arranged.
	When we came to power, fewer than 2 per cent. of pensions mis-selling cases had been satisfactorily resolved. We immediately sought to accelerate the process by naming and shaming the worst industry performers. By the end of last year, more than 99 per cent. of consumers with mis-selling claims had been compensated. Total compensation has reached £11 billion, and tough disciplinary action against laggard performers has resulted in £11 million of fines. Not a moment was spent by the Conservative party in supporting that activity or protecting pensioners ripped off by the policies of the last Tory Government.

Michael Weir: Will the Minister give way?

Ian McCartney: I am not one to avoid the hon. Gentleman—far from it—

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to criticise me for not speaking about the mis-selling of pensions from the 1980s, when the subject of the debate is winding-up arrangements?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must leave such matters to the Chair.

Ian McCartney: I am interested to discover that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is so sensitive. I was not speaking just about today. I was speaking about our attempts since 1997 to resolve the debacle. We got no support from the Opposition, even though it was they who created it in the first place.
	I shall deal with the wider issues of protection.

Oliver Heald: What about winding up?

Ian McCartney: I have dealt with that. By the end of my remarks, the hon. Gentleman will find that our proposals for consideration are far more comprehensive than what he has to offer. He raised issues about genuine protections, and I shall deal with those.
	The new kind of regulator will be an important step forward. As good as Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority was—it was introduced by the previous Government—in many cases it was not sufficiently proactive and merely reacted to situations. Following the quinquennial review and the Green Paper, we decided to introduce a new regulator that would be risk-focused and flexible, that would target resources on schemes and weaknesses causing the greatest stress to scheme members, and that would produce quality advice and guidance to whistleblowers to help to identify materially significant breaches. We wanted to change its role so that it would be proactive rather than reactive.
	We will introduce new rights to information and consultation. When changes to pension schemes are proposed, we want to ensure that better information is available so that employees' choices are easier to understand. We are setting up an employers taskforce to actively involve employers and encourage them to highlight the value of the pensions that they provide. We are encouraging all employers to provide better information to help to extend pension provision and take-up by employees.

Michael Weir: I am interested in what the Minister is saying about information. That may be at the core of the problem. The pensions mis-selling scandal, the Equitable Life debacle and various other matters have seriously undermined the public's belief in pensions. Do the Government have specific proposals to rebuild that faith in the pension system? Without that, we will get nowhere in reforming the system.

Ian McCartney: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. That is why we established the Penrose inquiry into Equitable Life. The Government will study its report closely. That was also the purpose of the Green Paper. One of the key elements in restoring faith in the pension system is improving the protections offered by the system that we inherited. The fair sharing of assets—

James Clappison: rose—

Ian McCartney: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not give way. Numerous colleagues want to speak. We will have many opportunities to debate these matters, and I have given way six or seven times.
	We want to ensure that when a scheme winds up, the assets are divided among scheme members as fairly as possible. I met my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and their constituents who have been affected by the winding up of the Allied Steel and Wire pension scheme. I know that the statutory priority order introduced by the Pensions Act 1995 and associated regulations are inadequate. We deal with that issue in proposals set out in the Green Paper. For the record, it was the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire who was the Minister who introduced the regulations.
	In the Green Paper, we are consulting on whether people who are approaching retirement age should be given higher priority when a scheme's assets are distributed on wind-up or whether those who have been members of their pension scheme for a number of years should be given higher priority—a proposal that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has been promoting. We are also consulting on whether there should be fairer sharing of assets between those with larger and smaller pensions when a scheme winds up. That might involve setting a cap on the level of pension that those with the highest pensions might receive if limited assets are available in the scheme. That deals with one of the points made about fat cats who try to use short-term gain to get bigger access to the assets of the scheme to the detriment of the workers.
	However, we recognise that, while changes to the priority order could mean that some people get more protection, that would be to the cost of others who receive less. We will therefore carefully consider the responses to the consultation. Only then will we decide what changes to implement and when. I am due to meet members of the all-party group on steel to discuss recent developments in pension provision in the steel industry and their concerns about protection of scheme members' rights. I look forward to hearing their views.
	The statutory priority order can be modified by secondary legislation and we will consider how best to implement any proposals in that regard. On fairer sharing of assets and amending the priority order of creditors, when pension schemes such as those of Allied Steel and Wire or United Engineering Forgings are wound up because their sponsoring employer becomes insolvent, they are categorised along with unsecured creditors at the bottom of the list of creditors that can make a claim on an insolvent employer's estate. We are considering moving pension schemes up the order of priority for payment, possibly by creating a new a category of creditor that would give pension schemes higher priority than they have at present. That is another recognition of what was said in the discussions that I had before the Green Paper's publication.

John Bercow: Given that consultation on the Green Paper will inevitably be detailed and will almost certainly prove relatively lengthy—I state that not as a criticism, but simply as an observation of reality—is there any possibility that the right honourable Gentleman will be prepared to consider for the benefit of affected parties the retrospective application of his final proposals?

Ian McCartney: On retrospection, the honest answer has to be no. However, there are issues about real time. There will be occasions on which wind-ups are not complete, but changes have been made in the wind-up regulations. In such circumstances, a decision has to be made on whether a scheme that has not been fully wound up will be covered by any changes that are made during that time. I am prepared to write to the hon. Gentleman about the matter, as the area is difficult and complex and I do not want to mislead him. I have been firm about the first part of his question and the second is worth looking at. Furthermore, I know that he has raised issues about a particular company. I have a policy to meet hon. Members, from whatever part of the House they come, with regard to issues relating to particular companies. If he wants to avail himself of that policy, I shall be more than happy to concur with his wishes.

Julian Brazier: Will the Minister give way?

Ian McCartney: No—

Julian Brazier: rose—

Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to make a speech, and I could rightly be criticised for giving way far too much. I have given an absolute commitment to the House to return to the matter and I dealt honestly with the two difficult issues that it involves.
	We will also consider issues relating to insolvent employers in terms of insurance and centralised clearing house facilities.

Barry Gardiner: My right hon. Friend said that the priority order might influence what happens to the benefit of pensioners. Does he accept that while the prioritisation of pensioners over debt may lead banks not to foreclose on them so quickly, the fact that debts are down the pecking order might mean that they foreclose earlier on the companies involved?

Ian McCartney: I said that we were consulting on a number of measures and I did not go out of my way to indicate a preference as to those proposals. The issue must be considered in the Green Paper and large numbers of employees are rightly asking us to consider it. We will consider whatever recommendations arise on the basis of what is said by stakeholders, and I note what my hon. Friend has said.
	We are again asking for consultation on insurance issues and the establishment of different funds far better to protect pensioners. We are improving compensation arrangements where schemes become insolvent because of acts of dishonesty—100 per cent. compensation will be provided in such cases—and looking at ways to improve arrangements in respect of underfunded benefit schemes where there is still a solvent employer. We are also looking to protect scheme members where a Government are seeking to define benefit provision, as we want to ensure that employers who want to make changes adequately consult their employees.
	On transfer between private companies, we are bringing forward proposals on transfer of undertaking regulations to protect pensions. I was the Department of Trade and Industry Minister who introduced changes in the relevant European directive to protect pensions in public-to-public and public-to-private transfers for the first time in Britain. That will now be the case in respect of private-to-private transfers. I look forward to changes following the end of discussions on the Green Paper.
	On renewal of partnerships, we are doing two very important things in the Green Paper. First, we are establishing the pensions commission to deal with a whole range of issues independently of the Government. Key people are stakeholders and all of them have skills and knowledge. The commission is intended to provide in the short term and the medium to long term a source of information that is independent of the Government and the Opposition, while giving them a capacity to ask questions and seek information about pensions issues. It will give advice about issues such as compulsion. The Government have not closed the door as some might suggest in trying to ensure that both state compulsion through national insurance contributions and the voluntary system can work more effectively. We have said that the matter should be considered closely by members of the commission over the next few years.
	We will also introduce an employers taskforce, whose membership will, I hope, be announced soon. Its aim is to provide a bridge enabling employers to work with the Government and trade unions to achieve best practice and innovation and ensure that employees save more for the longer term and that more of them participate in bringing investment into pension schemes.

Lynne Jones: Will the Government also ask the pensions commission to give advice on the interaction between the state pension system and private pensions?

Ian McCartney: The commission will be working on a programme. First, it will consider statistics on pensions; secondly, it will consider the wider situation. I take note of what my hon. Friend said, as it is important that the commission does effective work. That is exactly the Government's intention in establishing it.

Bob Spink: Will the Minister give way?

Ian McCartney: No; I want to conclude my speech.

Bob Spink: rose—

Ian McCartney: I like the hon. Gentleman dearly and we have spoken over many years. I assure him that next time when I speak in a debate in the House and he is present, I shall give him the first chance at my neck. There is a rash judgment if ever I heard one.
	Opposition Members hint and wink about some issues relating to pensioners, giving the impression that they are prepared to consider a consensus. As a consensus and bridge-building politician, I welcome that. [Laughter.] I do not know why there is so much laughter about that, as it is absolutely true.
	In the spirit of reconciling Conservative policy with consensus, perhaps the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire can give us an insight into the development of his party's policy on pensioners and older people. Only a matter of weeks ago, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, boldly stated in the 29 December edition of The Sunday Telegraph that, on behalf of the shadow Cabinet, he was
	"digging through current spending, and had found opportunities for cuts".
	He said that those cuts could total 20 per cent. of public spending across the board of Government activity. When numerous Conservative spokespeople confirmed that over the holiday, they made no effort to exempt pensioners from the share of agony that £100 billion of cuts will cause. Why? We want some answers at the end of the debate. If Conservative Members genuinely support those policies, there will no consensus between hon. Members on pensions in the long term.
	Let me give some examples of what Conservative policies would mean. The basic state pension would have to decrease by £15.49 for a single pensioner and £24.76 for a pensioner couple. The minimum income guarantee would have to be cut by £20.42 for a single pensioner and £31.16 for couples. That figure could be further reduced. The former Tory leader told the House in 1999 that there was nothing to recommend the minimum income guarantee. It is Conservative policy to eradicate it.
	The winter fuel payment would be cut from £200 per pensioner household to £160 or less. The hon. Member for Havant made it clear that he believed that it was a gimmick and implied that a Conservative Government would drop it. In 2001-02, we spent £16 million on cold weather payments; the Conservative party would slash that figure by £3 million. I could go on about pensioner credit, capital allowance, attendance allowance, bereavement lump sum payments, carer's allowance, TV licences, bus fares and the health and social services budget. The Opposition propose cuts for them all.
	We require an answer: would the Opposition cut cold weather payments or the home energy efficiency scheme? Would they cut pension credit, which would mean a cut of £400 a year or 20 per cent. across the board? We have invested an additional £2 billion, yet the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire has not told us whether the Conservative party will support the introduction of pension credit in April.
	The Opposition would reduce capital allowances by £2,400 from the current £12,000 to £9,600. That would fundamentally undermine the concept of pension credit. They would cut attendance allowance by £11.25 a week. That is a disgrace and I hope that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who winds up the debate, gives an absolute assurance that the proposals that the hon. Member for Havant made before Christmas will be scrapped and put in the bin.

Steve Webb: The subject of our debate is important and it is proper that the Conservative Opposition have chosen to use some of their allocated time for it. It is important to individuals who have been affected and the many who will be affected, although they do not yet know it. Their expectations of a comfortable retirement will be utterly devastated and many of us will have to respond to our constituents by telling them that, as matters stand, nothing can be done for them.
	We have all heard of the Allied Steel and Wire case. Although the company would prefer not to be a cause celebre, it has become a classic case of what can go wrong under the current regime. The ASW workers told me that many joined the scheme when it was compulsory. The Minister nods and obviously appreciates the point, which has not been brought out in the debate. Joining the scheme was a condition of employment at ASW.
	All hon. Members who supported such legislation or would like to reintroduce compulsion must ask whether the public sector has a responsibility that goes beyond simply saying that perhaps workers can contract back in. Since the law of the land meant that they had to join the schemes, and they did not make a misguided financial decision, perhaps the public sector owes them a greater obligation than has so far been acknowledged.

Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman is a keen advocate of compulsion in pension contributions, for which the TUC is also campaigning. However, does he agree that, for the reasons he outlined, it would be wrong to make it compulsory for workers to contribute to an employer's scheme if there were no separate state earnings-related scheme that they could choose to join instead?

Steve Webb: I half agree with the hon. Lady. We are in favour of compulsion, but on top of what? What is the state's role? We support compulsory membership of a private sector scheme for those above specific minimum income levels in addition to an adequate basic universal state pension. All pension provision carries risk. The hon. Lady is understandably wedded to state pension provision. However, the Conservative Government ripped the state earnings-related scheme to shreds. That was a political risk. Anyone who pinned hopes for income in old age to that scheme was severely disappointed. No mechanism is without risk, and we would prefer it to be shared.
	We have heard of the ASW case. In my constituency, BAE Systems is a major employer. It projects that, in three years, its pension fund will be £1 billion in deficit. We have heard about a fund that will be £2 million in deficit, but the figure could be £1 billion for BAE Systems in a few years. The Secretary of State for Defence queries whether it is genuinely a British company and is perhaps thereby softening us up for not giving it a contract. There could be a combination of a fund in huge deficit and a company that faces commercial difficulties. The system cannot cope with funds that are vastly under-financed and companies that get into trouble. I was slightly disappointed that the Minister did not go further and outline some of his proposals in the Green Paper that could cope with such a problem.
	I want to emphasise the human cost of the problem by mentioning the case of a constituent who came to see me only yesterday, unaware that the House would debate the issue today. She is two years from retirement after working for her employers for more than 20 years. Last June, the pension fund was closed. The company will not wind up the fund because it is solvent and if it wound up the fund, its under-financing would mean charges that would drive it out of business. It is possible to transfer out, but the value of doing that is woefully inadequate.
	My constituent was expecting a pension of £22,000 a year. She has been told that the transfer value will buy her a pension of £4,000. She was devastated and asked whether I could do anything. I said that we would debate the subject in the House the following day, that I would bring the circumstances to the Minister's attention and ascertain whether any aspect of the Green Paper or any other proposal could deal with the problem or offer my constituent consolation.
	I was tempted to be rude about the Conservative motion but I realised that I helped to draft it. However, I am an academic and could therefore probably do both.

Bob Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that shortfalls in pension schemes were almost unheard of when the Conservative party was in government?

Steve Webb: Clearly, the state of the stock market puts pressure on funds. It has been performing badly and is a specific cause of underfunding, coupled with the dividend tax credit—a policy that the hon. Gentleman did not propose to reverse.
	I began to consider the origins of the motion. At the beginning of December, Conservative Members tabled early-day motion 304, which gave an uncritical welcome to the proposals of the National Association of Pension Funds to change the order of priorities when a scheme winds up. That organisation claims that not only retired members but those within 10 years of retirement should be a priority. I am worried that, under the proposal, people in their late 50s who join a company would go straight to the top of the queue whereas those who worked for it for 30 years since leaving school would be at the bottom and could get nothing.
	Distance from retirement is therefore not the only factor that matters. People who are close to retirement cannot do much else, but most of their pension eggs may not be in the current employer's basket. Length of service therefore matters as well as proximity to retirement. I therefore amended early-day motion 304 and advocated introducing
	"new winding-up priorities which take account of both the age and length of service of non-retired members."
	I am delighted that the final sentence of the Conservative motion refers to introducing
	"new winding-up priorities which take proper account of the age and length of service of non-retired scheme members."
	I anticipated thanks from the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for my contribution to the motion, but I expect that he ran out of time.
	The refined position therefore takes account of people's closeness to retirement, because they will have no time to make other arrangements, and the number of eggs that are in a specific basket. Both aspects matter and should be taken into account.
	As the Minister highlighted, Conservative Members cannot be allowed to get away with the start of the motion, which I did not write. It states:
	"this House expresses its deep concern at current arrangements for winding-up . . . schemes, which leave many people receiving much less than expected for their retirement; deplores the lack of action by the Government to address this issue".
	The Minister pointed out that the author of those schemes was sitting on the Conservative Front Bench at the moment. He did not mention, however, who the members of the Standing Committee on the Pensions Bill were in 1995. We have spent some time today trying to find that out, and we discovered that those who brought in the framework that we are debating today included the previous leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), and the present one, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), whose name, unless my eyes deceive me, appears at the top of the Conservative motion. The structure that he is criticising is, therefore, one that he himself introduced. It would be inappropriate, however, to be partisan on an occasion such as this.
	One of my concerns about the motion is that it is extremely narrow. In other words, it takes a point at which there is not enough money in a fund, and proposes a very narrow debate on who should get a share of that money, and who comes first in the queue. I intervened earlier on the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and gently suggested that, if those who were near retirement and with long service received a higher claim, we should all be honest with them. We should be saying to every one of today's retired occupational pensioners that they might receive less pension. In other words, we would be giving new security to a group of people who might, perhaps, have a disastrous cut in their pensions, but we might also be sowing a new insecurity among millions of private sector occupational pensioners who have hitherto always had the first claim on pension funds.

Julian Brazier: It is, of course, the case that 90 per cent. is the level of underpinning guarantee for those who are on even as protected a form of income as an annuity, under the terms of the protection provided by the different annuity companies, so there is a good precedent for that in relation to pensioners with private sector schemes.

Steve Webb: I take that point. Indeed, 90 per cent. is not an arbitrary figure. It is a figure that is already used in protection schemes. The point that I am trying to make is that, at a time when there is a crisis of confidence in private sector pensions, we must all bite the bullet together and say to all Britain's 5 million—something of that order; several million, anyway—retired occupational pensioners that they will have a less high priority when the funds are divided up and that they might get less next year than they would have got this year. We should not try to pretend that that is not a consequence of focusing our help on those close to retirement and with long service.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire was, regrettably, absolutely silent on how we should ensure that there is enough money in the pot in the first place. By all means, let us have a debate on how to carve up an inadequate fund and give it out more fairly. Of course we should do that, but what can we do to ensure that there is enough money in the first place? The Government are proposing fewer actuarial valuations, as a measure to reduce the regulatory burden on employers who run schemes. That is the goal towards which they are heading. That worries me, because a fund could satisfy the minimum funding requirement at a particular point in time, but things could then go wrong. The stock market could fall, for example, and life expectancies could increase. The fund might then have insufficient money in it before it was wound up. So, at the point at which it was wound up, things could have gone horribly wrong without any corrective action having been taken.
	I am not sure whether the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), will be responding to this debate—

Maria Eagle: indicated assent.

Steve Webb: I am pleased to see that she will be. Will she clarify whether that measure will provide sufficient safeguards? Regular valuations are, one would hope, like an amber light. They are a warning that something needs to be done. If valuations were infrequent, things could go badly wrong and a scheme could be wound up at the wrong time. It would then be frozen, and nothing could be done about it. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy me on that point.
	We have not talked much about the regulator. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) raised with the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority in the Public Accounts Committee whether another Robert Maxwell case could happen. The response of the regulator was, broadly, yes. She was not convinced that there was enough protection in place to prevent that.

Maria Eagle: While the hon. Gentleman is right about that, does he accept that the regulator was saying that a determined fraudster or criminal could get round most of the rules that anybody could devise?

Steve Webb: That is absolutely true. Indeed, the Maxwell case showed how an imaginative fraudster could get money out of a pension fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was pointing out, however, that we need to do more to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of funds before things get out of hand. That means prevention rather than cure; it means amber lights, warnings and trigger mechanisms. That is what I am driving at. There needs to be a much more effective system of spotting problems before things go wrong. Today's debate, however, is essentially about how we bail things out when they have gone wrong.
	A further key issue is how we ensure that, once we have this pot of money, a bigger proportion of it goes to the pensioners and workers, and a smaller proportion to the financial institutions that wind up the schemes. We have heard of cases in which independent trustees of the company who are put in to wind a scheme up have charged £100 to answer the inquiries of The Daily Telegraph. It is outrageous to charge £100 to deal with a media inquiry. The Minister described himself as a socialist the other day. I wonder whether he has ever thought of nationalising this process.

Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steve Webb: I will not, because I have nearly used up all the time that I had planned to take.

Alistair Carmichael: She is the other one.

Steve Webb: The other socialist, yes.
	There is clearly a serious issue here. Once we have reached the stage at which there is not enough money in the pot, the money must not—for goodness' sake—go to pay the financial people. It must go to the pensioners.
	Some schemes take decades to wind up. For example, I have known pension schemes to take 30 years or more to be wound up. That is totally unacceptable. What are the Government doing to make wind-ups a great deal quicker? In our view, scrapping contracting out would make the whole process a good deal easier. What are the Government doing about that?
	The scope of the motion is extremely limited. It is about carving up an inadequate pot more fairly. We do not have a problem with that, but that is only a small part of the process. My biggest concern is that the Government have produced yet another Green Paper that will further delay any effective action in relation to the much wider canvas that I have painted.
	I shall cite one example of just how slow and indecisive the Government have been. Back in 1993, when the Goode committee was examining these issues, it considered what is called a central discontinuance fund—the idea involves a pot of money that can be dipped into when a fund goes wrong—but decided that that did not represent a viable solution. In September 2000, the Department responsible for social security implemented a consultation to consider a central discontinuance fund. In March 2001, the response to the consultation found that
	"very few were attracted to the idea"
	and that the Government would not act as guarantor. There was very little support for the proposal. Then, on page 65 of a Government report published in September 2002, we learn that
	"an alternative approach would be to introduce an insurance scheme, perhaps a central discontinuance fund, providing pensioners and non-pensioners with greater protection"
	and that
	"we would welcome views on these options".
	So, presumably we are going to hear yet again the same views as those that were put forward in 1993 and those that were given 18 months ago. This will mean more delay while we go back to the same ideas that have already been rejected, and no serious action appropriate to the scale of the problem being taken. There is a huge agenda involved here, of which this motion touches on just a tiny part. Yes, let us share out inadequate pension pots more fairly, but, for goodness' sake, let us act urgently to ensure that those funds have enough money in them to begin with, so that this issue need not arise.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the House that, if hon. Members impose on themselves a voluntary limit of about eight minutes, it might be possible for me to call everyone who is seeking to catch my eye.

Frank Field: I also wish to add a sense of urgency to today's debate. All hon. Members have been lobbied by steelworkers who have recently lost not merely their jobs and the prospect of a decent pension but, often, their homes as well, in that they will have inadequate income to complete their mortgages. They, and many others among our constituents who have recently been affected by the closure of their pension schemes, are looking to this debate to see what action the Government might introduce in the short term to abate the suffering that they are experiencing.
	If the parliamentary answer that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions gave me the other day is accurate, it is clear that, since we came to power in 1997, a large number of our constituents have already been affected by the closure of their pension scheme. It would be a foolish person who thought that the situation was going to become easier over the next few years, rather than the opposite. Of course, one applauds the way in which my right hon. Friend has approached this debate, as well as his enthusiasm for the whole issue of pensions and his keenness for consultation, but I hope that he will take back to his colleagues the fact that the House does not think that consultation alone is going to be adequate. There comes a point at which the consultation has to cease and action has to begin.
	The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, was right to point out that some ideas in the recent Green Paper go back at least to the Goode committee, and many of the others, which are presented as a novelty, were in the 1998 pensions or general welfare reform Green Paper. So, merely to say that one is consulting on them is clearly not adequate, but neither is the Opposition stance.
	I suggested to the Conservatives that, if they are serious about the plight of those who find themselves in pension schemes that they were made to join but which they see winding up, they could be the first Opposition in the history of this Parliament to dispense with show debates and demonstrating a great deal of anger about the Government's lack of action, and introduce legislation themselves. In place of a further debate on the serious decline of occupational pensions, might they not consider introducing legislation? If they are interested in introducing legislation on winding-up arrangements, may I describe to them the Bill that my hon. Friends and I have already introduced?

Julian Brazier: The right hon. Gentleman knows the considerable respect in which he is held by the House and, indeed, by the Opposition. He will recall that in the previous Session we tried to assist him with every possible co-operation on his measure to take housing benefit from unruly, antisocial neighbours, but his colleagues on the Front Bench wrung their hands while the Liberal Democrats talked it out.

Frank Field: The good thing about today's debate is that, this time, the Liberal Democrats want to support a Bill that goes beyond merely dividing up the sums. In the three minutes that I have left, may I describe to the House the Bill that my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and I have introduced?
	First, while we accept the Liberal Democrats' point that the current way of dividing funds is inadequate, there ought to be greater weighting to the contributory years that people put in a scheme rather than to their age. Of course there must be protection for pensioners, but clearly it is not right that those who have been in a scheme for 30, 35 or 40 years are pushed down the list by somebody who may have been in it for only five, but who is retired and so begins to scoop their whole pension entitlement.
	So, the Bill's first aim is to have a winding-up formula based on contributory years rather than age. Its second aim is to deal with those legal and professional advisers who milk such schemes. All of us know examples involving our constituents or those of other Members in which the professional fees have taken a fifth of the pension savings. We cannot allow that to continue.

Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Frank Field: No, no. We all want to get into the debate.
	The Bill's third clause says that while we may have proposals to protect funds in the future, some of our constituents have been badly affected already. What are we going to offer them? The Bill proposes that we introduce a gentle levy on orphan funds, which are funds that the insurance companies have built up, sometimes over 200 years, involving people who had policies, but died without claiming. Surely those who, as the hon. Member for Northavon said, were made to join pension schemes should have some stake in those unowned assets, which we should not allow to be of book value in the insurance companies.
	Looking to the future, the Bill's fourth clause would introduce an insurance scheme for those who do everything required of the pension scheme to pay their contribution, but find that the funds are not there to pay that entitlement. On that, we need to act collectively, hence the clause. Clause 5 asks the Secretary of State and his colleague the Minister to introduce within a time scale a measure on where we should put the pension debt as against a company's other debts.
	Although my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has left the Chamber, we might say that putting pensioners up the list of debtors would, for example, make the banks close companies more quickly. My view is that, as in the recent closure of the steel fund, the banks make a careful calculation. They had recently lent to the company, and they thought, "If we push it out of business now, we will get all our money back. We don't want to continue to take a risk." In fact, had the banks been pushed down the list, that company might not have been pushed into liquidation.
	I make a plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions and to the Opposition: there are many issues in the Green Paper and we need detailed discussion, but increasingly, over the next couple of years in the run-up to the general election, many more of our constituents will be affected by the closure of their pension scheme, and we could legislate this year.
	Our Bill is coming back to the House in early March, and it would be wonderful if the Government took it over and rewrote part or even lots of it. Let us have fewer crocodile tears from the Opposition. Let them say that they will use their time to give a Second Reading to the Bill, which my hon. Friends have already introduced. Most of the people affected so far come from constituencies represented by Conservative Members, so most of the Bill's supporters are Conservative Members.

James Arbuthnot: I have a huge regard for the Minister for Pensions and for what he knows and does in relation to pensions, so I hope that he does not take it as a discourtesy when I say that it is a great pity that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) did not remain in his job. Had he done so, we might not be facing some of these problems.
	I declare an interest as a member of Equitable Life and as a pensions barrister. I also declare an interest as one of the guilty men who introduced section 73 of the Pensions Act 1995. Experience has shown us that the priorities highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) need fine tuning. That makes the problem sound small, but it has turned into a major one. We all know that it arises from a more fundamental issue than a stock market collapse—the fact that we live longer, join the working population later because we spend longer in education, retire earlier and save less. Possibly the most important issue of all is the post-war baby boom, which we have yet to take account of in funding our pension schemes.
	We have a recipe for a catastrophic old age for many people, and the system that we have set up to cope with that potentially catastrophic old age is not at all simple. It is expensive, complicated, intimidating and run by a set of trustees who are largely unpaid and frequently untrained, yet they bear huge responsibility for our future in old age. The Government have introduced some fairly sensible measures in some places to deal with that. The Myners, Pickering and Sandler reports impress me, as do many points in the Green Paper, notably on the simplification of taxation, but the radical nature of the problem brings me back to what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said: it does not seem to have been addressed by a radical solution. Overall, there is nothing in the Green Paper to start people saving when they would not otherwise do so.
	I take as my text a letter that Professor Blake from the Pensions Institute sent to the Select Committee in August. He is a highly respected, independent academic who deals with these issues. He asks about the word "crisis" and says:
	"The word 'crisis' may be an exaggeration, but it is certainly the case that within a few short years what was the envy of Europe, namely a good well-funded private pension system sitting on top of an admittedly poor-in-comparison-with-the-rest-of-Europe basic state pension system, appears to be on the verge of possible disintegration."
	The first cause to which he attributes that is the ending of tax relief on UK equity dividends.
	The issue of winding up schemes has become extremely urgent. The National Association of Pension Funds confirms in its report that the issue is urgent. What sense of urgency have the Government shown? I am afraid that they have not shown very much. I agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, who stresses the need for urgency.
	Two measures are required: the first is difficult, and the second is easy. The difficult one arises out of Professor Blake's letter, in which he considers how we can get out of this mess. He highlights certain relationships and says:
	"higher state pension entitlements reduce the need to save privately for retirement, but have no discernible effect on the timing of the retirement decision
	higher occupational (defined benefit) pension entitlements have the effect of increasing private savings, but also of encouraging earlier retirement
	higher personal (defined contribution) pension entitlements have the effect of increasing private savings, but also of delaying retirement."
	We need to increase private savings and to delay retirement. The evidence given by Professor Blake points to higher defined contribution pension entitlements, as the closure of final salary pension schemes is now commonplace.
	There is nothing wrong with money purchase schemes, provided—it is a huge proviso—that companies pay into those schemes the same amount as they were paying into their final salary schemes, or more. A major problem is that companies have tended to pay much less into their money purchase schemes than they were paying into final salary schemes. What does the Green Paper suggest to address the need for higher defined contribution payments? I am afraid that the answer is nothing. Companies that pay more into their schemes encourage individuals who would not otherwise be given to saving to decide to save in a defined contribution pension scheme.
	Therefore, the first thing that the Government should do is to give companies major incentives to pay more into their defined contribution schemes. If the Government do not do that, we run the risk, as set out in Professor Blake's letter, of retirement becoming a 20th century concept—something that came in towards the end of the 19th century and went out at the beginning of the 21st. We as a country would find that change devastating.
	The second thing that the Government must do is relatively easy. They must accept the urgent need for a change of priorities. The priorities that arose out of section 73 of the Pensions Act may have been right or wrong at the time. If they were wrong, I accept my fair share of responsibility. They are certainly wrong now, and something needs to be done about them. What we require from the Government is not endless consultation, but action this day.

Terry Rooney: Occupational pensions have an inherent strength, partly because they have the widest possible membership. We should take account of the fact that the changes in April 1988, which led to 5 million people leaving occupational pension schemes, resulted in £13 billion being paid in compensation because of mis-selling. All that money came out of insurance companies' reserves, so it is not available now to get us through the difficult times that the financial world faces. In the past 15 years, employers have taken about £31 billion in contribution holidays. Had part of that money been put into schemes during those years, many of the difficulties would have been dealt with.
	I want to dispel the myth that means-testing by the Government is a disincentive to save. No one in their right mind, whether they are 21, 31, 41 or 51, says to themselves that, as there is a minimum income guarantee of £98 a week, they do not need to save, because that is fine for their retirement. No one in their right mind wants to retire on £98 a week, and no one consciously takes that decision.
	Much has been said about the need to protect workers. It is staggering that those words have been used by Conservative Members, but we live and learn. Information and consultation have also been discussed. Frankly, information is fine, but not consultation, because consultation gives no rights to workers. It is the ability of working people and members of a scheme to influence decisions that counts, not the fact that they are consulted when the scheme is in a mess and the company wants to close it. That is no good at all.
	We had the Goode report in 1993, a Green Paper in 1998, and now we have the 2002 Green Paper. They all raise the same issues, which have been ducked. This problem has gone on for far too long, and it is time that we grasped the nettle and took action. A vital component of that action must be proper training and support for trustees of pension schemes. At the moment, the position is quite scary. In view of their responsibilities, the training and skills that they are given to manage schemes are appalling. They should have much better support.
	Dubious comments have been made about the minimum funding requirement, and I am amazed that no one has mentioned FRS 17. It is not a problem in itself; it is a warning when a fund is out of kilter. The problem is the response that is taken to it. In the past couple of years, it has been used as an excuse for closing down schemes. When a problem has been identified, it should be cured in the shortest possible time, but not necessarily overnight. Better regulation of the response to deficiencies thrown up by those two requirements would be far preferable.
	I find it difficult to get into a debate about who has priority when a scheme goes into liquidation—it is like shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic. It is more important to consider what mechanisms can be put in place so that when a scheme unfortunately goes into liquidation there is adequate funding from somewhere, be it Government, a discontinuation fund, an insurance fund or a mutual fund. However, that would not affect what will happen in the next year or two, even if we brought in legislation today. This is a matter for the future.
	When schemes go into liquidation, an independent trustee is appointed. That is an introduction to the world of the golden salary. A company in Bradford called Lund Humphries went into liquidation, and an independent trustee was appointed at a fee of £100,000 a year. He was working on the scheme four hours a week on average. It took six years to wind up the scheme, because there was no incentive for him to do so. The longer it went on, the longer he got his £100,000. One of the issues that came up was the length of time it takes the Government to give notification of the minimum pension guarantee. For that scheme, it took 18 months. The Government could provide such information a lot faster. There should be tightly controlled time limits on winding up a scheme once it goes into liquidation. The accountants are ripping people off. Not the pensioner, not the worker but the trustee is the No. 1 priority. He, with his £100,000 a year, must come first.
	Many years ago, in 1990 or 1991, the European Court made a judgment that became known as the Coloroll judgment. It decided that pensions were deferred wages. That judgment has never been effected in British legislation, but it would change our landscape dramatically. A pension scheme's assets would become the property of the workers rather than the company. Decisions and power would lie elsewhere, and there might be a rather different response to market conditions.

Andrew Selous: If we had any doubts about the seriousness of the issue we are discussing, they have surely been dispelled by the realisation that 25 million of our fellow citizens are members of occupational pension schemes. That includes all the members of public-sector schemes. Over the past five years or so, some 30,000 schemes have had to be wound up. This is indeed a real, live, serious issue, which will sadly continue to affect many of our constituents.
	The Government acknowledged the seriousness of the problem when they tried, with legislation introduced in April 2002, to do something about the delay in winding up schemes that many Members have mentioned today. I understand, however, that fewer than 10 per cent. of those running schemes who were required to report the winding up of their schemes to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority by June 2002—some 4,000—had done so by that date, and considerably fewer schemes had been wound up. More effort must be made to ensure that schemes are wound up speedily.
	Members have rightly expressed concern about the costs of winding up schemes. Last October, the BBC's "Money Box" programme estimated that in the past few years about £800 million had been taken unnecessarily from schemes owing to the inefficient use of lawyers and actuaries. It said that trustees should have a duty to shop around and secure the best possible value for scheme members, to prevent the haemorrhage of funds from schemes that are already underfunded.
	It is particularly worrying that so many of our fellow citizens do not understand their lack of pension rights. A recent poll showed that 55 per cent. of people assumed that their pensions would be safe, and that their entitlements would be paid in full if their schemes were wound up. It is very worrying that so many of our fellow citizens believe they will be safeguarded when that is not the case. The Government's role is to educate them, so that they can take their own precautions should they choose to do so.
	It has been suggested that solvent employers whose schemes need to be wound up should be allowed to pay the accrued benefits owed to scheme members over the remaining working lifetime of those employees. I hope the Government will view that proposal sympathetically. Most of the problems that we have heard about today, however, involve employers who become insolvent when schemes are wound up. That does indeed lead to the worst situations. As many Members have said, it is particularly sickening when directors or senior executives who are privy to information use retirement schemes to secure their own future benefits at what turns out to be the expense of their employees. Their pensions are safeguarded, while employees with deferred pensions suffer as a result of what has been taken from the pot. That is especially unacceptable: we can fairly describe it as another example of the unacceptable face of capitalism. I hope that the Green Paper's proposals to deal with it will be implemented.
	It is also vital for us to protect those with long service. People with 30 or 35 years' service face a triple jeopardy: the loss of their jobs, the possible loss of their homes, and the loss of their pension assets. Part of the solution is to remedy some of the unfairness involved in dividing an admittedly inadequate sum, but that is not enough. It could be described as rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Given the great unfairness favouring those who enter a scheme just before it is wound up, there must clearly be a readjustment of priorities to favour those with long service. No one has mentioned the other half of the solution, however. I suggest a mutual insurance scheme for occupational pension funds.
	The United States has a pension benefit guarantee corporation, which takes a small levy from all occupational pension schemes. The concept of insurance is the prudence of the many coming to the aid of the misfortune of the few. It may not always be the perfect solution, but it would go a long way towards remedying the problem here. I speak as, probably, one of the few chartered insurers in the House. I urge the Government to look seriously at the American example. Although the premiums have risen lately, evidence suggests that the arrangement greatly helps those whose schemes have been wound up. We should think about both making current arrangements fairer and adopting an insurance scheme such as the one I have described.
	Insurance could be particularly useful in a context that has emerged in my constituency, where General Motors withdrew some £167 million from the AWD pension scheme. That affected many employees in my area. The action was legal at the time and the scheme was apparently solvent when the money was withdrawn, but surprise, surprise: it transpired that the scheme was not adequately funded. The pensioners did not receive their entitlement. The Government should seriously consider giving employers a duty to buy commercial rather than mutual insurance in such instances. Employers who had withdrawn a sum would have to pay it back to scheme members if the sum was later found to be inadequate.
	I urge the Government to look at the insurance markets. The London insurance market is one of the most sophisticated in the world, and I think that it can be part of the answer to the problem with which we are grappling.

Kevin Brennan: I welcome the debate. It is a pity that we do not have more time, but I understand that an important debate on herbal products will follow. That shows the Opposition's priorities.
	I do not agree with the motion, which is too narrowly drawn. The Opposition think that they have a good story to tell, but no one really believes that. After all, the Opposition introduced Flash Harry into pensions in the first place in the 1980s with the mis-selling scandal. While I accept the Minister's word that he seeks consensus and that the Opposition seek it too, it crossed my mind that the words "Conservative" and "consensus" have one thing in common: they both contain the word "con".

Andrew Selous: That was a cheap jibe.

Kevin Brennan: I will leave that cheap jibe, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, and move on to the issues in question.
	The Green Paper is a sensible kick-off point for the debate and the discussion. I thank Ministers, in particular my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions, for the meetings held with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and workers from Allied Steel and Wire during the past few months to discuss ways through the crisis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is right when he says that the firm went under because it was so easy for the banks to pull the plug. The firm had a full order book, so potentially it could have been solvent—but pulling the plug was an easy option for the banks because they knew that their money was guaranteed.
	Let us remind ourselves of the injustice—that is what it is—that the workers of Allied Steel and Wire have faced. One of them telephoned me just last week. He had worked for the company and its predecessors for 38 years and entered the pension scheme as a condition of his employment. At the time, it was a nationalised industry: workers were employed by the Government when they started their scheme. Let us remember that.
	Neither the man who telephoned me nor the workers to whom I have spoken ever dreamed for one minute that their pensions were not safe. They never had a big health warning strapped across them saying, "You are putting your money into a vehicle that, a year or two before you are due to retire, could be worth next to nothing." No one ever gave them that health warning, whatever the complexion of the Government in power.
	The issue of independent trustees has been raised. I read with interest recently an article in which Eddie Thomas, director of the independent trustee Law Debenture, said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead appeared to assume that the smaller the pension scheme, the cheaper the wind-up. My right hon. Friend had pointed out that it had cost £800,000 to wind up a scheme that was worth just £5 million. Eddie Thomas said:
	"Small funds can involve a lot of work that is disproportionate to their size. I don't think it is generally appreciated how much work there is in winding-up a scheme. We have to recognise that in a winding-up case all the chickens come home to roost."
	The animal metaphor that the workers whom I have met have used about independent trustees is not chickens coming home to roost but snouts in the trough. That is exactly what has been involved in some of these cases.
	There are some sensible suggestions in the Green Paper about giving greater priority to those workers nearer retirement. We have debated that this evening. There are suggestions that we should reorder the payment of creditors to get rid of the perverse incentives for banks to withdraw, make pensioners preferential creditors, or perhaps give them some new status that would put them higher up the pecking order when pension schemes are wound up.
	There have been suggestions, which I strongly support, that we should look again—it does not matter how many times it has been looked at—at setting up a mutual insurance scheme, such as exists in Sweden, or the central discontinuance fund model in the United States of America. I have been told by some people—I have done a bit of economics in my time—that moral hazard is a worry, as I am sure the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) knows. The worry is that pension fund trustees will not seek to get the best out of the pension fund for members because they know that they can be bailed out; it will change their behaviour. Technical and academic debates about moral hazard mean nothing to workers who face the immoral hazard of losing their pension when they are nearing retirement if a company is going bust. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions for listening at all those meetings we had. It is good that those issues have become a central plank in the Green Paper and that the Government are taking them forward seriously.
	What the Green Paper does not do, perhaps what it cannot do, is what we are trying to do in the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has introduced and that I support: it does not attempt to assist those who are currently affected by wind-ups in insolvency. We have a moral duty to seek every avenue that we can to try to help those workers.
	In many cases, the workers we are talking about are the best of British. They have worked through to close to retirement. Often, they have been asked to carry on working and not to take early retirement. They have been loyal, flexible and productive.
	At Allied Steel and Wire, workers have had to accept many changes in working practices. They do not have a guaranteed pension fund after 30 years' service, as one would in the fire service. They had to accept radical changes in working practices to keep their jobs. Then they lost their jobs. Fortunately, some of them may get them back, but they have still lost their pensions. They were still conned. They were told by successive Governments to save for retirement and to join their company pension scheme. To them, it is all a swindle. To be frank, if I were in their shoes I would feel the same way, and so would hon. Members. Therefore, we have a moral duty to look at every way to help them and to call on the Government to find a way.
	No stone should be left unturned, as the Minister for Pensions said in a previous debate in the House, in looking for solutions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has come up with an ingenious Bill that we should look at carefully. About 40,000 individuals may be affected because of the liquidation of their pension schemes in wind-up. To make good the losses, the Bill proposes a distribution of a small amount of the orphan asset funds that are held by insurance companies prior to setting up a permanent system based on the suggestions in the Green Paper.
	Pensions are supposed to be about security, not risk. Why should the workers bear the risk when it is the banks and shareholders who are supposed to bear the risks when companies go bust? The Government's objective is dignity and security in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners, to use the Government's own words, so let us look carefully at those proposals and see whether we can help the people who feel that they have been conned.

Adam Price: We have heard a lot of talk about consensus. Perhaps the consensus that dare not speak its name but that is emerging is that successive Governments of all political colours have failed to provide adequate protection for current employees in cases of insolvency. We are almost unique in the industrialised world in lacking any protection for workers in those situations. I think that the Government now accept that if the guiding principle of the Goode committee on pensions law reform was to provide maximum security, the legislation based on it, the minimum funding requirement, has been an unmitigated failure in meeting that objective.
	We have heard of the bleak situation facing the workers at Allied Steel and Wire. I spoke to John Benson only this morning. There are plenty of other examples—we have heard of United Engineering Forgings, Albert Fisher and others. Frustratingly, the solution has been lying in the in-tray of Ministers in both the current and previous Administrations. The idea of a statutory safety net for occupational pensions is not particularly new or original. It was the Government Actuary who first proposed a central discontinuance fund in his evidence to the Goode committee 10 years ago. He said in a memorandum to the committee:
	"Because many schemes would find it difficult to secure their liabilities on discontinuance, a mechanism is needed for handing over the liabilities to another vehicle, similar to an ongoing pension fund . . . The answer would appear to be to have a Central Fund . . . The fund would simply act as an administrative arrangement and investment vehicle for running off the liabilities of discontinued pension funds."
	If only the Government then or now had listened to the advice of their own Actuary, we would not be in this mess today.
	The Government have floated the idea of a mutual insurance system or a central discontinuance fund on a number of occasions. Indeed, they have commissioned research or consulted on those two options on no less than four occasions over the past five and a half years. At the time of the last round of consultation two years ago, the Government claimed that the responses received were overwhelmingly against mutual insurance or a central discontinuance fund.
	That strikes me as a little curious and strange to say the least, given the fact that the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, the National Association of Pension Funds and Pensions Management Institute have all been lobbying for the introduction of a central discontinuance fund for the past 10 years. Indeed, when in opposition, the Labour party tabled an amendment, during discussions of what became the Pensions Act 1995, to create a central discontinuance fund. Unfortunately, that was conveniently forgotten when Labour won the election.
	It strikes me that the Government cannot have it both ways: they cannot sanction an increasing reliance on private provision without providing adequate protection against the danger of fund collapse. It is no accident that in every country where widespread private provision exists, a central discontinuance fund or a mutual insurance system is an integral component of the pension system. As we have heard, since the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was set up in America in 1974, the benefits of hundreds of thousands of scheme members have been saved from the failure of their pension funds.
	The Government have said that they will look again at these ideas in the Green Paper, but even if they do improve provision and protection for future generations, that will not address the plight of former workers at companies such as ASW, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) pointed out. The Minister has again ruled out any prospect of retrospection, but retrospection is precisely what happened in similar situations in the United States when the PBGC was established. More than 200 companies that had gone into liquidation were retrospectively brought under the terms of the relevant legislation.
	As has been said, a strong argument exists that the Government have a moral responsibility to the affected workers. Before the recent introduction of the stakeholder pension, legal rules actually prevented people from contributing to a private pension if they were in an employer's scheme. That meant that people had no way of providing any other retirement income for themselves, yet their contributions were not properly protected. The responsibility for that surely lies with the Government. However, if the Government refuse to accept their moral obligations in this regard, they must live up to their legal obligations. Article 8 of the 1980 European Union directive on insolvency rights requires member states to protect pension benefits in situations of insolvency. This provision has never been fully implemented into UK law, and as a result the Government are liable to be sued for compensation. That is the opinion of Denton, Wilde Sapte, the UK's leading insolvency and pensions practice, and of Thompsons, the employment law firm that is acting on behalf of ASW employees, who are members of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. I understand that last week Thompsons employed a Queen's counsel to take this matter further.
	Faced with a lawsuit on behalf of ASW workers who are in the ISTC, the Government must ask themselves whether they are prepared to send Government counsel into the courts to rob redundant steel workers of their entitlements under European law. That would be a new low for the Government. Instead, I hope that they will make it clear that they intend not only to provide real protection for future generations of workers, but—as has been argued—to compensate in full the former workers who have been failed by the inaction of this Government and of previous Governments.

Lynne Jones: I am told that I must finish by 7.10 pm, so although there is much that I would have liked to say, I will have to curtail my comments. Today's debate reminds me of one that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and I initiated back in 1994, concerning the Teampace pension fund. The directors of that company, Michael Spiers and Kenneth Shaw, were able to milk dry the pension funds of companies that they took over to such an extent—and to their own benefit—that they decided to wind up the company, leaving the pension scheme £2 million in the red. During that debate, the then Minister—a former Member of Parliament for Tatton—said that that would never have happened if Goode's proposals for minimum solvency requirements had been in place, but as we have learned today, that that was not in fact the case.
	I must also place on the record that the then Government were unable to deal with an application for those individuals to be disqualified as company directors because the Department of Trade and Industry did not have the resources to deal with the many claims arising from insolvency schemes. As far as I am aware, those individuals, whose activities verged on the criminal, can still act as company directors to this day—unless they have been caught with their hands in the till elsewhere.
	That shows that every time pensions scandals arise, Governments and Members are under pressure to do something about the injustices suffered by our constituents. That remains the case, but the question is whether, ultimately, we can do anything to offer the security that people expect from their pension schemes. It is rather like trying to patch up an old mattress—as soon as one part is dealt with, another spring pops up elsewhere and problems occur. We have heard about some possible solutions, and measures outlined in the Green Paper, those suggested by the National Association of Pension Funds, and those in the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) may have a contribution to make. However, the ultimate crisis is the underfunding of pension schemes. The fact is that we are not putting away enough money for our pensions—a fact that can be attributed to a combination of demographic changes and the poor performance of the stock market, particularly in this country.
	It is disingenuous—indeed, it beggars belief—for the Opposition to suggest that a major factor is the Government's decision to end tax credits. That may have a small effect, but given that more than £400 billion has been wiped off the value of stocks in the FTSE all-share index in the past couple of years, the taking out of the system of a few billion pounds a year through Government measures is not the major point. As the Financial Times said in its leader of 27 February
	"The fact is that companies are no longer getting a free ride from the bull market towards paying for ex-employees in their long retirements. Now that pension fund surpluses are disappearing, they want to dump that responsibility. Another few billion a year from the government would not change their minds."
	Some of the proposals in the Green Paper, such as the simplification of the tax regime, are welcome. The Government say that that will save a few hundred million pounds in administrative expenses, which is all well and good. There are other proposals such as the re-prioritisation of assets, which is the major burden of the Opposition's argument. However, one does not get insurance for nothing. Under current proposals, if better mutual insurance schemes existed, or if better compensation existed where fraud and dishonesty were involved, the costs would be met by a levy from pension funds. That would actually add to the cost of the pension funds. Although there may be benefits in terms of confidence, the fact is that massive shortfalls in pension funds may well occur.
	In putting forward in the Green Paper their exemplifications of what people might expect from pension schemes, the Government assume that the return on investment will be 6.55 per cent., which is 2 per cent. above their predicted rise in earnings over the long term. We do not know whether that is true. There will always be risks in a system that is based on stocks and shares. That is why, as I said earlier, I hope that the pensions commission will consider the interrelationship of the state system and private pensions. There is no virtue in having a set percentage of pensions provided by the state or by the private sector; what is important is the total amount of money that we save for our pensions.

Julian Brazier: We have had a good debate, despite the fact that the time has been squeezed by two statements. I was particularly struck by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who outlined very clearly just how serious is the crisis facing the pensions industry in this country. He did not seek to lay all the blame at the Government's door, but he made it clear how much worse they have made the situation.
	In 1997, the Government inherited an economy in which private pension savings, across the different categories of schemes, were more than those in the rest of the EU put together. Since then, the proportion of people who reach retirement age with a second pension has fallen from 67 per cent. to 59 per cent. The rate of closure of pension funds to new members is accelerating, and 12 million workers have no pension arrangements at all. That is a shameful record.
	We chose today to focus specifically on the wind-up of company pension schemes. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made it clear that that is the most urgent aspect of the entire crisis. I realised how bad the situation was when a constituent of mine who worked for ASW, or Sheerness Steel as we used to call it, came to see me. He was just weeks from retirement, and he told me that after nearly 40 years with the company, he will not know for two or three years what his pension entitlement is, and he may receive less than half of the amount that he was expecting.
	We have discussed a number of issues today. First, and central to the crisis and to our motion, is the issue of priority, and we made it clear in our motion how we see that. A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), mentioned the important issue of the role of the independent trustee. A survey by Higham Nobbs, which looked at many closures, showed that up to £800 million appears to have been wasted in excessive fees. The conclusion of those industry specialists—that the average wind-up takes far too long and is too expensive—should give us all pause for thought. Other issues mentioned include the priority that a debt to a pension fund should take and the question of insurance, compulsory or not.
	Against that background it was very depressing to hear the Minister for Pensions take almost a quarter of the total time allocated for the debate to make a speech in which he largely attacked the Opposition on matters that have nothing to do with this. He can argue quite reasonably that when consultation is going on, he cannot give his views on the particular points in our motion. However, hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out that we are in the middle of the Department's 26th consultation on pensions, and many people want this narrow and desperately urgent issue unbundled from the rest.
	I shall ask Ministers two questions, and the Under-Secretary may choose to answer them in her speech. First, are the Government willing to consider unbundling the issue of wind-ups from the rest of the package? Secondly, is the Minister for Pensions seriously saying that there can be no retrospection at all? I hope that I misheard him, because this matter may affect many thousands of people. Nobody, least of all Opposition Front Benchers, would argue that measures should apply retrospectively to the time before the Green Paper was published. However, many companies at the margins have read its small print very carefully and asked themselves whether, if they are going to bail out, they should not do so quickly before the provisions bail in. Why cannot the Under-Secretary say that measures will apply retrospectively from tonight, if not from the publication of the Green Paper? Otherwise, the Government are providing a huge incentive for the problem to get worse and for more companies to back out of their commitments before the rules change.
	In a typically articulate speech, the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) made a powerful case for insurance and a central discontinuance fund. However, he did not fully explore the downside of that idea, which obviously lies in the likely costs that must fall ultimately on the taxpayer or on pension funds, many of which are already struggling. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). I am not sure that I agree with her recipes, but she brought her extreme concern and interest and her knowledge of the subject to the House, as she always does.
	I hope that the Under-Secretary will make it clear that the Government understand two points that go beyond the central crisis in the pensions industry and which they have refused to acknowledge—they simply go on and on consulting. First, they must accept that the crisis in winding up is the red-hot tip of the crisis as a whole. Secondly, if they announce possible action and give detailed options that put extra burdens on companies but do not make their measures retrospective to the date of the announcement, they will worsen the problem, and thousands of people will suffer.
	Will the Government unbundle this urgent issue from the rest of the package? We have made it clear what we think, and we are willing help them to take legislation through the House, if it is even needed; the central issue of priorities could be handled by secondary legislation. Will the Under-Secretary also address the point about retrospection?
	The Opposition take our responsibilities seriously. We have repeatedly drawn attention to this issue. We have set out our views in black and white in the motion about what should be done about the central issue of prioritisation. We have even offered the Government every possible co-operation in taking swift action in the House to tackle the problem. When are the Government going to take action?

Maria Eagle: I welcome the debate, which although short, has been robust and fascinating. I welcome the fact that the Opposition are buying into some of the proposals in the Green Paper, which shows a willingness to develop a consensus for moving forward. Certainly, on pensions, the wider the consensus that we can achieve, the better. We look forward to hearing what else they have to say and what other parts of the Green Paper they agree with, because the motion is very narrow.
	Many Members from all parties and many people outside the House are concerned about ensuring an appropriate level of protection for the interests of pension scheme members on wind-up, whether or not insolvency is the cause. That is partly because there have been high-profile cases to which right hon. and hon. Members have referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and others have talked about ASW.
	If we value our voluntary system of private pensions, and we do, pension promises must be kept. That is an important part of the partnership. The question is how we can balance appropriate protection for members, which is tremendously important, with sufficient flexibility and the lowest possible costs, which will make the provision of pension schemes appealing to employers as well.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions set out our proposals for improving protection on wind up, so I shall refer to only one or two of them before I deal with some of the points that have been raised in the debate. In the Green Paper, we are already consulting on whether there should be a fairer sharing of assets between those with larger and smaller pensions when a scheme winds up. We are looking at capping the level of the highest payment where there are limited assets. In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire appeared to show some sympathy for that, so we look forward to the support of the Opposition on that proposal.
	Where there is a wind-up of an underfunded scheme, we are looking into possible changes to the priority order, introduced in 1995 by the Conservatives, to ensure fairness for those affected. However, it is right that we should listen to what everyone affected might think of the proposals, as the National Association of Pension Funds noted in its parliamentary brief for this debate. Despite the calls for immediate action, citing the ideas of the NAPF, which we heard from Opposition Front-Bench speakers, the association itself says that further discussion with interested parties would be necessary to finalise the fairest and most practical solution. The NAPF does not suggest that we move immediately to producing a set of regulations but that we should get things right before we go forward. I approve of that.
	The motion expresses deep concern at the current arrangements for dealing with pension funds affected by employer insolvency. As we have already heard, the Conservatives devised those arrangements, so it is touching that they are now championing workers' rights. I prefer to look at the Conservatives' record, however, and to judge them on the basis of what they did when they had the chance.
	During their 18 years in office, the Conservatives did nothing to enhance protection for workers affected by insolvency and redundancy and they themselves devised the order of priority between unsecured creditors on the wind-up of schemes that they now criticise. When prompted, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire remembered that in fact he was responsible for that when he was an Under-Secretary at the former Department of Social Security. As the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) kindly reminded us, the responsibility did not lie only with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire; both the current Leader of the Opposition and their previous leader were involved in setting out that order of priority.
	It is not as though there was no pressing problem of company insolvency and redundancies during the Conservatives' time in office. They were engaged in systematically wrecking the private pension provision of millions of workers by promoting mass unemployment. That did not happen by accident; they did it on purpose. Creating mass unemployment was an instrument of economic policy for the Conservatives. They were also engaged—just for good measure—in allowing the mis-selling of private pensions on a truly staggering scale, so people who did not lose their jobs might have fallen foul of that.

Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: No, I do not have time.
	In fact, the Conservatives were so keen on the ideological policy of promoting private provision at any cost that they actually incentivised private pension sales to the tune of £3.6 billion. They threw millions of workers on to the dole as an instrument of economic policy while presiding over the two worst recessions this country has endured since world war two.
	If people came out of that with their occupational pension intact they were lucky. Millions did not. Not only in my own city of Liverpool, where three quarters of manufacturing jobs were lost in 18 months between 1979 and 1981, in an avalanche of factory closures and pensions closures engineered by—

Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that when the hon. Lady refers to shortage of time, the division between the two debates today is arbitrary and agreed? It is not a fixed point. The Opposition are completely relaxed about letting the hon. Lady have an extra minute.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whatever else, it is nothing to do with the Chair.

Maria Eagle: It was not only in Liverpool that we suffered the loss of three quarters of our manufacturing jobs within 18 months; more than 2.6 million manufacturing jobs were lost throughout the country, many of which had good pension schemes. That avalanche of job destruction and that wanton industrial and social vandalism were wreaked deliberately by the party that said that unemployment was a price worth paying. The Conservative record speaks for itself.
	I shall now deal with some of the points that were raised during the debate, so I hope that Opposition Members will be pleased. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire referred to the so-called £5 billion raid on pensions. The Opposition keep repeating that figure yet they never mention the off-setting effect of the corporation tax cuts that were introduced at the same time. The withdrawal of payable credits removed a major distortion in the tax system that encouraged companies to pay out their profits as dividends rather than retaining them for reinvestment in the business. It was designed to create a more neutral environment for planning and investment decisions that would encourage long-termism rather than the damaging short-termism of the previous arrangements. In any case, when the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) was asked whether he would reintroduce the dividend credit he said, in The Observer on 24 November last year, that he did not think that the Conservatives would do that. He said that helping pension funds did not mean going back to the previous system. On that point, I think that the Conservatives protest a little too much.
	Many right hon. and hon. Members referred to concerns about independent trustees and their behaviour on wind-ups, especially the fact that they take a great deal of money out of funds because they have higher priority than other creditors. The law requires independent trustees to disclose the scale of the fees that they charged within the past 12 months. Such transparency is important.
	Independent trustees should also be able to demonstrate to the pensions regulator that they are acting professionally and in the best interests of the members. If that is not the case, the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority can replace trustees where there is evidence that those appointed by the insolvency practitioner are failing to carry out their duties responsibly. The proposals in the Green Paper for a more proactive regulator should strengthen those powers. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and for Cardiff, West and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who made a particular point about that.
	The hon. Member for Northavon, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, made some points about speeding up wind-up. The Government are also concerned about the length of time that it can take to finalise arrangements when a scheme winds up. We introduced new legislation last April that places greater visible accountability on the people involved. We need to reduce costs to make the whole process more efficient. The new rules mean that OPRA has a more proactive role and we expect it to ensure that the improvements actually come about.
	Several Opposition Members referred to the closure of defined benefit schemes, although the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) struck a somewhat discordant note in respect of his party and made an interesting speech that advocated the increasing use of defined contribution schemes. I agree that there is nothing inherently better about defined benefit schemes; it is the level of contribution that matters. At present, contribution levels tend to be less—about half as much—in defined contributions schemes than in defined benefit schemes. Although it is true that closures of defined benefit schemes have been accelerating over recent years, only 1 per cent. of them closed in 2001. We need to keep the matter in perspective. Many employers are still committed to their defined benefit schemes.

Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: No, I do not have time. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We will give the hon. Lady another minute. Will she give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Once again, that is entirely a matter for the participants in the debate.

Maria Eagle: The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire stops me from dealing with the points that were made in the debate.
	I welcome the conversion of the Tory party and their new-found deep concern for the workers. However, I am a suspicious sort and so I suggest to the workers and their trade union representatives that they beware of Tories bearing gifts. Sometimes wolves appear in sheep's clothing. Pensioners will judge the Tories by what they did when they had the chance, not by what they say now when they are about as far away from power as I am from being recognised as the tallest woman in Britain.
	The Conservatives described the £200 winter fuel payment as a gimmick. They opposed free television licences for the over-75s. They said that the minimum income guarantee had nothing to recommend it. They said that they would reconsider the pension credit, which rewards people for saving, and their leader has been a long-standing advocate of wrecking the basic state pension, of which he once wrote that it should become a function of the private sector.
	To top it all, the Conservatives are now advocating a 20 per cent. across-the-board cut in public expenditure, which would devastate pensions. All that from the party of VAT on fuel, charges for eye tests and pensions mis-selling—and from the party that slashed SERPS not once but twice. It cut inherited SERPS in half, then did not bother to tell anyone. No wonder the Opposition kept their motion so narrow—they did not want their record examined. But we remember that record and will keep reminding the people of Britain that despite the Tories pretending to be the workers' friends, they cannot be trusted on pensions. I commend to the House the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 315.

Question accordingly negatived
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House acknowledges the crucial contribution of the UK tradition of occupational pension provision; welcomes the range of measures in the recent Green Paper to strengthen that tradition and to renew the pensions partnership between employers, employees, the financial services industry and Government; supports, in particular, the promotion of occupational pensions as a means to recruit and to retain good staff through the employer task force and other measures; notes the proposal to give employees the right to be consulted on changes to an employer's pension scheme; further notes the Government's consideration of a range of options to bolster member protection in cases where schemes are wound up, including options for a fairer sharing of assets when schemes close, with more priority for workers closer to retirement or those with more years of contributions; believes that there should be 100 per cent. protection in cases of fraud; supports the appointment of a new proactive regulator to investigate fraud and maladministration; further notes the proposed £150–£200 million administrative savings which will encourage firms to open new schemes and keep existing schemes running; and further welcomes the establishment of the independent Pension Commission to assess how effectively the current voluntarist approach is developing and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on whether there is a case for moving beyond that approach.

Food Supplements Directive

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Liam Fox: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that the Food Supplements Directive includes a list of nutrients and nutrient sources that may be used in supplements and that there are nearly 300 safe nutrient sources on the UK market which are missing from the list; further notes that unless full safety dossiers are submitted for consideration by the European Scientific Committee for Food by July 2005 these nutrients will be illegal; observes that the cost of commissioning research to include within a dossier, and the compilation of such dossiers, makes the task prohibitively expensive and that some 270 safe and popular nutrient sources will be lost to the UK industry and its consumers; and declines to approve the proposed statutory instruments implementing the Directive unless and until the Government secures an amendment to the Directive so as to allow to remain on the national market those products which would otherwise fall outside the Directive's technical restrictions; further notes that the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive would require dossiers to be submitted to the Medicines Control Agency and would impose costs of tens of thousands of pounds per product on manufacturers; regrets that it would not allow any overseas product which had not been on the European market for 10 years even if it were demonstrably safe; and urges the Government to renegotiate the main provisions of this flawed Directive.
	It is fair to say in the House that it sometimes comes as a surprise that a certain subject should produce a very large mailbag for Members on both sides of the House, and this is one of those issues. Indeed, the concerns expressed have prompted the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House through early-day motions that were tabled in the last Session and this Session. Tonight, we all have an opportunity to reinforce those concerns in a real debate in Parliament, with a real vote and a real motion reflecting those early-day motions.
	The directives are important for two reasons, the first of which is specific to the directives themselves, and the second relates to the general burden of regulation. The directives will have specific effects on consumers' freedom of choice and on United Kingdom manufacturing and retail business. On the general burden of regulation, as my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor pointed out recently, 4,642 new sets of regulations were introduced in the United Kingdom last year—one for every 26 minutes of each working day. That is not only a record, but an increase of nearly 50 per cent. on the number introduced in 1997. As well as the general burden of over-regulation, those directives reflect the European Union's increasing intrusion into areas of our national life and legislation where it has no place.
	I shall first turn to the background to the two directives—first, the food supplements directive. In May 2000, the European Commission published a directive on food supplements, which was finalised in the spring of 2002 and published in the Official Journal on 12 July 2002. Its main provisions will be implemented over the next seven years. Although presented as essential to ensure consumer safety, the food supplements directive has been designed to standardise the different regulatory regimes for vitamin and mineral supplements across EU member countries. That may cause a slight liberalisation of the market in France, Germany and some other countries, but it will mean the loss of a substantial number of products in the existing liberal markets—the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in particular—where millions of consumers have been using higher-dose vitamins and minerals for several decades. In March 2002, Conservative Members of the European Parliament voted against the food supplements directive.
	The second directive is that on traditional herbal medicinal products. Under Community legislation governing pharmaceuticals, no medicinal product may be placed on the market without having obtained a marketing authorisation. The draft directive on traditional herbal products provides for a new special procedure to apply to the authorisation of traditional herbal products. Products to which the proposal applies would be identified in a positive list, subject to their meeting certain conditions, including the need for safety to be demonstrated, a requirement to show a history of 30 years' use, the use of agreed medical indications and the need for labelling to include a clear statement that product efficacy is not proven, as well as other information on the safe use of the product. On 21 November 2002, the European Parliament voted for that directive at first reading, backing numerous amendments tabled by the Conservatives designed to protect individual choice as much as possible.

John Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting this crucial issue. Many of my constituents are angry that they will not be able to buy their normal products in the usual way, and shops are worried about the damage to their business. Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Government cannot stop the EU doing such enormous damage to something that does not need fixing shows that they have absolutely no influence at all in Brussels?

Liam Fox: It would be reassuring for me to tell my right hon. Friend that the Government have no influence—I imagine that that is true—but I am not sure whether they tried to use any influence in this instance, so I am not sure whether we can draw any inference from their inactivity.
	We have some specific reservations about the food supplements directive. The first threat is that the directive introduces a system of maximum permitted levels for nutrient content. Those levels are expected to be set substantially lower than the scientifically assessed upper safe level. That process will start with a cautious assessment of the safe level by the EU Scientific Committee for Food. That level will then be further reduced by the European Commission to take into account risk management factors, such as nutrient intake from other dietary sources and population reference intakes. Political considerations at the relevant EU Standing Committee will then come into play, with probably the Governments of France, Germany and other countries seeking to block everything, except the lowest possible dose levels in line with their existing markets.
	Millions of British consumers regularly use higher-range vitamins and minerals. Removing those products from general sale will not stop consumers wanting them. A good example might be the generally high doses of vitamin C available in this country. If we harmonise down to the sort of level used in countries such as Italy, we might find that a couple of fruit smoothies from the House of Commons canteen gives us a higher does than recommended by the EU. What is to stop the outrageous and incredibly creative step of consumers taking two tablets instead of one? That directive is complete bureaucratic nonsense. As Consumers for Health Choice has put it,
	"such action would raise a very real moral hazard by forcing consumers to seek"—
	these products—
	"from unregulated outlets such as overseas mail-order companies and the Internet, putting consumer safety at risk."
	In addition, if high-dose nutrients are lost, the entire market will be genericised, putting a question mark over the future of all natural health care and alternative therapies, and putting at risk the livelihood of specialist retailers and manufacturers. Of course, UK manufacturers could take advantage of some of the loopholes. They could move abroad or go somewhere as close as the Isle of Man to continue to manufacture and market the same products to the same consumers through the internet. What is much more likely, however, is that they will simply disappear, sacrificed needlessly on the altar of European harmonisation.

Mark Todd: Will the hon. Gentleman set out how British manufacturers such as Peter Black in my constituency currently have access to the German, French and Austrian marketplaces, to which he referred as liberalised in this process? Currently, I believe that they are not able to sell into those marketplaces satisfactorily.

Liam Fox: I referred to the United Kingdom and the Netherlands as liberalised. I referred to France and Germany as much more restrictive, which is entirely in line with what the hon. Gentleman says. I fear that, rather than liberalising and allowing German and French consumers access to the products currently available to UK consumers, the exact opposite process will occur, with greater restriction of the markets in the United Kingdom to bring them into line with the restricted availability in other countries. The directives will be designed to suit the already restrictive practices in other countries, not the liberal trading environment of the United Kingdom. It will be against the interests of British consumers and British manufacturers.
	The practical effect of the detailed proposals in the second directive on herbal medicines would remove many safe and popular products from the marketplace, as some products have not been on the market for the necessary period. The imposition of the extraordinarily arbitrary 30-year period would jeopardise the position of products introduced over a period of nearly three decades and prevent all future innovation. No new products could be brought to market, even if they had been available for many years in another non-EU country with a good safety record. The directive would not allow products that were combinations of otherwise legal ingredients—for example, existing mixtures of herbs with nutrients such as vitamins and minerals—leaving some of those products, which represent an important section of the UK market, in a regulatory vacuum.
	On top of all that, the cost of the new framework would be completely beyond many small manufacturers, forcing them out of business. What do we want the Government to do?
	On the food supplement directive, the Government must immediately use every opportunity to persuade the Commission and the Governments of other EU member states to allow the most liberal possible interpretation of the legislation. The Government must also force an early review of the procedures of the EU Scientific Committee on Food so that the requirement to submit dossiers for nutrients currently not on the permitted list is not overly burdensome and expensive. Above all, the Government must work now for an amendment to the directive that would allow those safe supplements, which would otherwise lie outside the directive's technical restrictions, to remain on the UK market. As the Health Food Manufacturers Association put it
	"What is needed is a system whereby the SCF can accept minimum data requirements for such products, based on their history of safe use. The UK Government should be arguing for this in Brussels."

Angela Browning: Is it not the case that if the Government do not use their influence in the way that my hon. Friend suggests before we receive the final directive to be considered in Standing Committee, it will not matter what Members of the House think about it, or what representations we make? It will be a done deal, and we will have no power to amend it.

Liam Fox: As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I shall come to the democratic deficit that that represents in just a moment.
	What do we want from the Government in relation to the second directive? The directive's scope is currently restricted to herbals alone, thereby making many safe and popular products that combine herbals and food nutrients ineligible, as well as excluding many important combination products used in traditional Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine. That needs to be addressed.
	The second area is cost. There are two ways in which the impact of registration costs could be ameliorated: first, by ensuring that registration fees are kept as low as possible; and secondly, by encouraging the early development of a national positive list made up of products with a long tradition of safe use in the United Kingdom, for which minimum regulatory assessment will be required. Those are not huge steps for the Government to take, but they will take some energy in pushing them forward, given the state of play that the Government have allowed to develop.
	There is more to this debate, however, than the specific directives. We suffer in this country, as I said at the outset, from an increasing burden of over-regulation. Digby Jones, the director general of the CBI has said:
	"our flexibility has been steadily eroded by ever increasing regulation and there is still more to come onto the statute book. We now face a real danger of our advantage being destroyed and there are clear signals that firms will go elsewhere if they are burdened with more legislation."
	That is exactly what is happening in this arena. A survey of 600 members of the Institute of Directors showed that 84 per cent. feel that the problem of excessive bureaucracy has got worse under the Labour Government. Much of it, however, originates in Europe. On the burden of legislation, it is worth pointing out to the House that the Lord's prayer has 59 words, the Ten Commandments have 297, the American declaration of independence has 300, and these two directives together have 10,038. That makes the point clearly.
	Time after time, the EU extends its influence though the spurious use of directives, and we in this House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, can do absolutely nothing about it. Time and again, control over whole areas of our national life is abandoned with little more than ministerial whimpering. Specific directives such as those under discussion may be small issues in themselves, but they amount cumulatively to the castration of this Parliament. I cannot stand the nanny state telling us how we must live our lives. If I hate one thing more than the British nanny state, however, it is "Euro nanny" running amok. It is time that Members on both sides of the House stood up for those who elected us to protect and not surrender their interests.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"recognises, in relation to the Food Supplements Directive, the Government's firm commitment to the view that the law should allow safe and properly-labelled food supplements to be freely marketed; welcomes its intention to take advantage of flexibility, secured by the UK, to permit continued use of substances not on the permitted lists where products comply with existing UK food safety legislation; notes that the impact on the long-term availability of products currently on the market will depend upon future developments on maximum limits and lists of permitted nutrients; supports the Government's efforts to press the case for any maximum limits which may be established at EU level to be based on thorough scientific risk assessments; further recognises that the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would introduce regulatory arrangements to set safety and quality standards for unlicensed herbal remedies, and introduce systematic consumer information about the safe use of products and permit companies to make claims; further notes that the proposed Directive is supported by most interest groups, who believe it will protect public health and boost consumer confidence in herbal medicines; further welcomes the progress of the Government in negotiations for more flexibility to take account of valid evidence of traditional use from outside the European Union and to permit herbal nutrient combination remedies; and further welcomes the stated willingness of the Herbal Forum, representing all UK manufacturers' trade associations in the sector, to work with the Medicines Control Agency to minimise regulatory impact, consistent with the need to protect public health."
	I do not think that these are small issues but ones of great importance to people up and down the country. I am therefore delighted that we have the opportunity tonight to debate these two European directives: the food supplements directive, which has already been passed, and the directive on traditional herbal medicinal products, which is currently under negotiation.
	I want to make it clear at the outset that we support the right of consumers to have access to a wide range of safe remedies and supplements. We understand the anxieties that people have about the possible effects of the directives, but the discussions have also included a great deal of misinformation, which has caused consumers some unnecessary anxiety.
	It is absolutely vital that we get the right balance in this area of policy. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) rightly mentioned the views of consumers, the important issue of freedom of choice and the effect on manufacturers, which I will deal with in my remarks. I am absolutely amazed, however, that he did not once mention public health in relation to the important area of food supplements and herbal remedies. We must get the right balance between consumers having freedom of choice and access to a wide range of safe supplements, while making sure, crucially, that we protect public health.

Anne McIntosh: Does not the hon. Lady subscribe to the fundamental principle of European law that once a product has been accepted for free movement in one member state it should be generally allowed in every other member state? By excluding these products, the French and Germans are therefore acting illegally.

Hazel Blears: No, what is important is that products are able to demonstrate their safety, quality and efficacy. I will be amazed if Conservative Members depart from that principle. The proposal for the herbal sector is for a simplified registration process so that the products do not have to go through the even more lengthy and expensive process of obtaining a specific medicines authorisation. The proposal is designed to try to make sure that those products can get to market in a way that recognises their traditional use.

Michael Weir: I am interested in the Minister's remarks, but can she explain, if supplements have been on sale perfectly safely in this country possibly for generations, why the European directive will effectively take some of them off the market? Where is the evidence that public health requires some of them to be removed from the market?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman raises an important question and I intend to deal with it in relation to both the food supplements directive and the herbals directive. In both cases, there are important public health issues, so I shall deal with that point in some detail.

Liam Fox: The Minister is right to suggest that public safety should be paramount. However, is she suggesting that the current legislation is insufficient to protect the public? If she thinks that some of the products that are currently available might be adversely affected by the directive, why will they be on sale until 2009?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is certainly well aware of the significant concerns about a whole range of herbal products. For example, in Westminster Hall, we have debated aristolochia, which has been found in traditional Chinese remedies and has led to serious health problems. We have also seen recently how prescription-only steroids have been used in traditional Chinese eczema remedies. We placed in the Library last year a whole dossier relating to the concerns about such products. It is generally accepted—among manufacturers as well as consumers—that getting proper quality standards into the sector is a top priority. I shall come to the views of manufacturers in due course, because they are important.

Desmond Swayne: Given the Minister's concerns—which I do not share—will she answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) as to why the products will remain on sale for many more years?

Hazel Blears: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the food supplements directive rather than to the herbals directive, he might like to know that it makes provision for a transitional phase. We need also to introduce quality into the herbals sector, because some of the products are pretty dangerous. On food supplements, we have to make sure that people recognise the findings of the dossiers that prove that products are safe. There is a long way to go on food supplements. We have not yet had any negotiations about maximum permitted limits, and there is a great deal to play for in getting the best deal for the products that are on sale in Britain. Much of what the hon. Member for Woodspring said was speculation about what might happen in the future. The important thing is that the Government are engaged actively in the debate and are not simply throwing our hands up and saying that there is nothing that we can do.

Hilton Dawson: Late on Thursday, I become the latest Member of the House to present a petition, and this time it was on behalf of 437 of my constituents who have expressed a great deal of concern about the two directives. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the views of the hundreds and thousands of people who have been represented in the many petitions that have been presented to the House are being taken into careful account in all the work that she is doing on this issue?

Hazel Blears: I certainly can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The allegation has been made that the Government have failed to use their influence on this important issue. I absolutely reject that. The Government have been able to exercise considerable influence on the food supplements directive and on the herbals directive. I will come to the details of that, because we are absolutely determined to engage actively in putting forward the interests of the people of this country. We will not abdicate our responsibility.

Angela Browning: rose—

Angus Robertson: rose—

Hazel Blears: I have given way lots of times. I now intend to make a little progress.
	As I said, it is important to get the balance right between protecting public health and promoting honest and informative labelling so that people can make informed choices. It is for consumers to choose what to eat. We are not in the business of the nanny state—whether it is a British nanny state or a European one. We know that consumers welcome a wide range of choice and we are determined to make sure that that is sustained. The rationale of our approach applies as much to food supplements as it does to other foods. We know that many consumers value the range of food supplements that are currently available on the UK market.
	Our current position on the food supplements directive is the one that we took in the negotiations. They were difficult negotiations. It was not a case of our not engaging; we were in there arguing the case for our position. The negotiations were carried forward with great vigour and in full consultation with all interested parties. The negotiations are now over and the supplements directive is a fact of life, but the Government were positively engaged in achieving the flexibility that enables us to have transitional provisions from 2005 to 2009 and in securing a commitment in the directive that the maximum permitted limits, which is the crucial issue for most consumers, will consider not just nutritional need, which was the view taken by most other members states, but safety, which was the view taken by the Government, and dietary intakes. We achieved in the negotiations a broader base of factors to be taken into account in setting maximum permitted limits than we would otherwise have done had we taken the view of the hon. Member for Woodspring and opted out of the negotiations.

Angela Browning: If I heard the Minister correctly, she said a few minutes ago something about safety, which suggested that she believes that some products on the market contain dangerous components or ingredients. She mentioned a Westminster Hall debate on one of them. Before statutory instruments appear before the Standing Committees of the House, will she place in the Library a list of all products on the market in this country that she believes contain dangerous ingredients or components? If she has the medical and scientific evidence to show that dangerous products are on the market, the House deserves to know what they are and why they are dangerous.

Hazel Blears: That is exactly why, following the debate in Westminster Hall, we did just that. We placed in the Library a dossier compiled from reports from all around the world about substances that had given rise to health concerns. If any further items have given rise to concern since the dossier was placed in the Library, I shall gladly include them on it.
	I have already referred to aristolochia. In addition, digitalis causes serious irregular heart rhythms. That was reported in the United States following the accidental substitution of harmless plantain with digitalis. Synthetic drugs have been adulterated. For example, fenfluramine, a prescription-only medicine, was banned globally on health grounds in 1997, but has been identified in traditional Chinese weight-loss remedies. Steroids have been found in skin creams, and there are herb and drug interactions with St. John's wort.
	There have also been quality issues. Analysis has been carried out on echinacea, and lots of leaf and ash have been found in the product even though it should be made from the root if people are to obtain the benefits that they think they are buying. A lot of information is available and the dossier is in the Library. If further matters have arisen since the dossier was produced—the debate should be based on proper evidence—I will gladly place information about them in the Library.

Brian Iddon: Why does it take a far more adverse reaction to remove a pharmaceutical product from the shelves than it does a herbal product?

Hazel Blears: Herbal products are only just starting to be regulated. That is why it is important to support the directive. We need a proper regulatory framework for the herbal sector as well as our framework for traditional medicines. Herbal medicines are becoming more accepted in different medical environments, and the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) has been pressing their case for a long time. As they become more widely used and demanded, the requirement for them to be properly regulated becomes even more intense.

Angus Robertson: rose—

Jenny Tonge: rose—

Hazel Blears: I want to make a little progress. I have given way many times, and I now want to describe our current position on the food supplements directive.
	We have taken a robust position in the negotiations. The directive establishes the positive list that defines the range and form of vitamins and minerals that can be used in food supplements. It sets the principles for defining the maximum permitted limits; it does not go into specific limits but sets a framework. It also provides for mandatory labelling on nutrition information, warnings about keeping the product out of the reach of children and a statement making it clear that supplements are not a substitute for a balanced diet. We welcome those provisions.

Jenny Tonge: I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. I have not seen the dossier in the Library—I have been concentrating on other dossiers recently—but what is the directive's position on qat, which is classified by the Government as a herbal substance and is chewed mainly by people in the north African community? It is a great concern to the elders of that community, who have been to see me, because it is a powerful tranquilliser, then stimulant, causing young people in particular to do nothing with their lives. Can the Minister advise us whether the directive will cover that substance?

Hazel Blears: I am not in a position to do so at the moment, but I undertake to look into the matter. I shall get back to the hon. Lady about the important matter of where that substance falls in the regulatory framework.
	The directive contains a provision enabling member states to require notification of new products when they are developed. We will not activate that provision because it will involve unnecessary regulation. We are anxious to keep regulation to a minimum, but commensurate with the protection of public health—we want to get the balance right. It is fair to say that, if the Government and the Food Standards Agency had not engaged actively in the negotiations, the directive would have gone through and we would not have won flexibilities. Nor would we have broadened the base on maximum permitted limits, which is an important gain.
	The directive must be implemented by 31 July this year. Draft regulations have been prepared and are out for consultation. The first effect of the directive, on labelling, bites on 1 August 2005. Reports of the imminent withdrawal of swathes of products are misleading. I am concerned that, in the motion, the Opposition talk about 300 products being taken off the shelves—[Interruption.] Well, they talk about 300 but mention 270 later in the motion. I am not sure whether they know which figure is correct—perhaps it depends on which briefing they are citing.
	The food supplements directive contains two positive lists. The first deals with vitamins and minerals that can be included in food supplements, and lists all the vitamins currently used in food supplements and all but six minerals in those supplements. The controversy arises in relation to the second positive list, which deals with sources of nutrients, not nutrients themselves. The distinction is important. This is not about taking products off the shelves, but about the fact that 270 sources of vitamins are not included in the positive lists. Both lists remain open for amendment—they will not be closed—and new sources can be added to them.
	The second positive list in the food supplements directive includes 32 sources of vitamins, nine of calcium, 11 of magnesium, 11 of iron, eight of zinc, eight of sodium and nine of potassium. A range of nutrient sources are included in the positive list, so consumers have been caused unnecessary alarm. It is simply not the case that the products on which they rely will be withdrawn.

Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister saying that our brief from Holland and Barrett, a reputable company, is grotesquely inaccurate and dishonest? It says:
	"The Directive, when transposed in UK law will still . . . lead to the banning by August 2005 of several hundred nutrients and nutrient sources which are currently permitted, affecting potentially thousands of UK products".
	I have a retail outlet in my constituency. I like the shop, go there and use its products from time to time. Is it being dishonest?

Hazel Blears: Many of us have such outlets in our constituency—I have myself. I have not seen the letter, but it refers to "nutrients and nutrient sources", thus making the point that I have been making—that the vast majority of things that are not on the positive list are not vitamins and minerals, but combinations and formulations of those ingredients. I am informed that the vitamins that people want to take will be available in the formulations—the nutrient sources—on the positive list. However, companies may be required to reformulate their products or submit dossiers if they want to carry on with a specific formulation.
	I have just said that there are a number of formulations for all minerals and vitamins on the positive list, so it is unlikely that a whole range of products will be wiped out. Both lists include a wide range of vitamins, minerals and formulations. Admittedly, other formulations and nutrient sources are not included in the lists at present, so it will be a matter for industry and manufacturers to decide whether they want to submit dossiers on those nutrients or provide products derived from nutrient sources included on the lists. They therefore have many choices to make. I have received letters from constituents who think that echinacea and garlic will be banned. That is not the case—there is no substance in those allegations.

Angus Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—she has been generous in accepting interventions. She will appreciate that many hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland, as throughout the rest of the UK, are concerned about the measures, but I have heard nothing about joined-up government and devolved Administrations. Matters such as food hygiene, composition labelling and advertising are devolved. What discussions has the Minister had with her counterparts in the Scottish Executive? How many times has her opposite number in the Scottish Executive, Malcolm Chisholm, who is Minister for Health and Community Care, attended the Council of Ministers to battle for a Scottish interest on that important subject?

Hazel Blears: The matter is clearly of concern and interest to consumers up and down the country, and the proposed regulations have been consulted on in other countries. On the second question, I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman the exact details.
	On the future of food supplements, the next big step is maximum permitted limits, which will be of great interest to consumers. Substances can be added to the list so long as a dossier is submitted by 12 July 2005. Member states may allow continued use until 31 December 2009, so there is a lengthy transitional period for manufacturers and retailers to take steps to ensure compliance. I welcome the fact that manufacturers using substances that are not on the list are co-operating in the preparation of dossiers, which clearly reduces the costs and regulatory burdens on them.
	The directive does not set maximum limits, but establishes a framework for them. The House should be aware that other member states take a view of food supplements that is very different from ours. They regard them much more as medicines and, initially, have taken a more restrictive line than the one that we take. We have been able to achieve a wider framework for the setting of permitted maximum limits that looks at safety and thorough scientific risk assessments as well as nutritional need. We shall to continue to press those key considerations. Our efforts will focus on getting a good deal for the UK on implementation. I accept that many consumers value the high-dose products on the UK market, but we are actively pressing for thorough scientific risk assessments. There is still a great deal to play for.

Mark Todd: Can I return to the point that I raised with the Minister's opposite number, who wilfully ignored it? From the perspective of a UK manufacturer seeking to enter the European marketplace, is not the attempt to break down restrictions in currently restricted markets good news?

Hazel Blears: Indeed, it could well be in future. We are speaking of a different viewpoint from that of our country. The Netherlands shares our view, but other member states take a much more restrictive view. It is important, therefore, that we have been able actively to engage in those negotiations to make sure that we can retain UK consumers' rights to the supplements that they value, and ensure that we make those goods more widely available in future.
	We set up an expert committee on vitamins and minerals, which is preparing a report and has consulted widely. The report is likely to be published this summer. It will then go to the European food safety agency and will form the basis of our negotiating position on the maximum permitted limits. I can promise the House that that will be robust, and that we will argue the case as strongly as we can.

Brian Iddon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the European Union committee on food safety has set a maximum daily dose of 25 mg on vitamin B6, without taking into account factors such as dietary intake? The dose recommended by the committee may be less than 25 mg. It is traditional in this country for consumers to take more than 100 mg of vitamin B6. What will happen if there is such a wide disparity between the UK and the EU figures?

Hazel Blears: I am aware that vitamin B6 is taken by many thousands of people in this country, and that there are concerns about the consumption of very high levels of vitamin B6 and the effect on the nervous system. At this point, it is not right to speculate about the European food safety agency's view on these matters. That is why it is important that we have succeeded in widening the framework within which the maximum limits will be set, rather than simply on the basis of nutritional need. Safety is the primary concern and must be taken into account.
	On the directive on traditional herbal medicines products, there is agreement across almost the entire herbal sector that current regulatory arrangements for unlicensed herbal remedies are unsatisfactory. We do not set quality standards, we do not set safety standards, we do not require consumer information about the safe use of products, and we do not allow companies to tell consumers what the product is for. We have had repeated examples in the UK and across the world of unsafe or poor quality unlicensed products, or products containing illegal ingredients. I have already set out some examples of the wrong herb being used, contamination and poor labelling. We have placed the summary of evidence in the Library. The Medicines Control Agency has undertaken several successful prosecutions in relation to herbal remedies found to contain illegal ingredients, but the real issue is the lack of systematic quality controls to prevent those illegal ingredients from getting into the products in the first place.
	The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee examined the issue of complementary and alternative medicine and reported in November 2000. The all-party group took evidence from various sources and was clear on the case for regulation. It stated:
	"We are concerned about the safety implications of an unregulated herbal sector and we urge that all legislative avenues be explored to ensure better control of this unregulated sector in the interests of the public health."
	The House of Lords Committee realised that public health was an important consideration, as well as consumer choice and the rights of manufacturers.
	The proposed directive will put in place systematic arrangements to protect consumers. Ministers, including myself, have had meetings with people from the sector—manufacturers, herbalists and consumers. The clear majority of interest groups broadly support the directive. Groups representing practitioners, manufacturers, pharmacists, doctors and toxicologists, and the Consumers Association have all indicated their support. They believe that the directive will protect public health and, importantly, boost consumer confidence. The herbal manufacturers want a regulated regime, because they want their sector of the market to have the confidence of consumers, so that they will want to buy the products and feel that they can rely on their efficacy and quality.
	Unlike Consumers for Health Choice, which has campaigned and issued hundreds of thousands of leaflets, and which is funded by some large companies in the field, including Holland and Barrett, Solgar and Biocare, many other groups do not have the resources to engage political lobbyists, but they are passionate in their support for the directive.
	The European Herbal Practitioners Association, which represents 1,200 herbal practitioners in the UK, states that the EHPA now supports the proposed directive,
	"recognising that it represents the best chance to safeguard the public by ensuring reliable quality and safety standards for herbal products."
	The EHPA states that in its judgment, failure of the proposed directive to pass into law
	"could potentially jeopardise the supply of herbal medicines to the public since in the absence of agreed quality and safety standards for herbal medicines throughout the EU, there would undoubtedly be a loss of confidence in the sector".
	The Herbal Forum, which represents all 10 manufacturing trade associations, recently stated that it sees the need for the directive and that it wants to work closely with the Medicines Control Agency. Such views are held not only in this country. The draft strategy of the World Health Organisation on traditional medicines was published last year and recommends support for all countries to establish effective regulatory systems for registration and quality assurance of herbal medicines.
	In our European negotiations, our main aim has been to press, as in the case of food supplements, for increased flexibility as regards the scope of the directive. We are very hopeful of progress. We understand from the European Commission that the next version of the proposals, which is due out shortly, will extend the proposed simplified registration procedure to herbal/nutrient combination remedies. The hon. Member for Woodspring raised the issue, and consumers and others in the field have been raising it for some time. The combination products, which at present do not have authorisation, would currently be required to go through a full market licensing procedure, but they may well be able to come under the simplified procedure of the directive. That would be an extension of consumer choice, rather than a limitation of it. We look forward to the next draft. If that development is confirmed, it will be an example of the Government's creativity and the Opposition's lack of imagination on the subject.
	We have also pressed for the directive to be amended so that more account can be taken of valid evidence of traditional use from outside the European Union. The Medicines Control Agency, with the support of many groups across the UK herbal sector, has fought long and hard in Europe over several years to get wider recognition of non-EU traditional remedies. We welcome the possibility of progress. We think that the next draft of the directive will give the European herbals committee power to reduce the requirement for a minimum 15 years' EU usage where valid evidence is supplied. On those two issues, combination products and traditional non-EU usage, we are hopeful of progress.
	The thousands of leaflets issued by Consumers for Health Choice will have frightened many consumers. Last year, we extended the public consultation process and asked people who were worried to send in examples of products likely to be ruled out as a result of the directive. We referred 200 substances for examination. The results showed that three or four of them might have been excluded. That is the extent of the issues with which we are dealing. To frighten consumers by talking about hundreds, if not thousands, of products being ruled out is not a responsible course of action.
	We are keen to ensure that Chinese and Ayurvedic medicines can be incorporated in the category of traditional non-EU use. We shall continue to press for that.
	Manufacturers large and small are supporting us in this cause. They are concerned that some of their competitors are short-changing the public with lesser quality products. Why should the public have to accept patchy, second-rate standards merely because a medicine is made with herbal ingredients rather than chemical ones? None the less, we attach great importance to trying to keep the regulatory requirements to a minimum, so we are keen to engage with the industry in that regard. The MCA and the Herbal Forum have launched a detailed programme of discussions about the dossier process, in which they are asking how those requirements can be streamlined and how they can ensure that companies collaborate so that they are not all starting from scratch, perhaps by enabling them to refer to each other's evidence.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring proposed the idea of a national positive list. We are certainly sympathetic to that idea, but we think that many of the practical issues could be dealt with by co-operation between those in the industry, who should use each other's information. We are not unsympathetic to the idea of a national positive list as well as a European one, and we will continue to explore it.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am glad to hear about the consultation that my hon. Friend is promising to continue to hold with the industry. Will she assure the House that she will not allow any directives to pass through the European Union legislative process unless the industry's concerns are taken into account?

Hazel Blears: From the outset, the Government, the MCA with regard to herbals and the Food Standards Agency with regard to food supplements have been engaged with the industry, including large and small companies, manufacturers, retailers and the whole field to try to ensure that we advance the views of the people whom we represent and to protect consumers and public health by getting the balance right.
	On the food supplements directive, our focus is now on good implementation, ensuring that we maximise consumer choice and pressing for a safety-based approach to maximum limits. On herbals, we want to enhance the status of herbal medicine and maintain consumer choice, and our initiative is widely supported in the sector.
	It is crucial that we get the balance right between protecting public health and ensuring that consumers have a wide choice of safe and effective food supplements. I suppose that I can do no better at the end of my speech than to quote from the brief that the Consumers Association—an independent and challenging organisation—has given to hon. Members for this debate. It states:
	"There is potential for harm in relation to both herbal medicines and food supplements, where there is inadequate quality control and insufficient information. These two EU Directives will establish regulatory frameworks that ensure consumers can take full advantage of these products in the secure knowledge that they are using them safely and that they contain what they say they contain."
	The Government are ensuring that that happens. As usual, the Opposition motion is cynical, short-sighted and opportunist. It exposes their inability to take mature and responsible decisions on behalf of the people of this country. Our amendment sets out our plans actively to engage on all these important matters with other member states and the Commission to get the best possible deal for consumers in this country, as well as adequately illustrating the difference between us. I ask the House to support our constructive amendment.

Evan Harris: The Liberal Democrats welcome this debate and applaud the Conservative party for raising on one of their Opposition days a subject that features heavily in hon. Members' postbags and which has attracted much cross-party support as the subject of early-day motions. It has also been the subject of petitions submitted by many of my hon. Friends and, indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Under-Secretary was uncharacteristically harsh in her closing remarks in claiming that the Conservative party's motion was cynical, short-sighted and opportunistic. That might embarrass some Labour Members who support at least some of the sentiments underlying the concerns that have been expressed. Generally, the debate has been detailed rather than partisan, and I hope to continue in that spirit.
	The Under-Secretary was right that there is an issue of public health, and it has to be balanced with choice. She has my sympathy in grappling with the difficulties of finding that balance. I think that the main principle should be that people should be allowed to consume products where it is safe to do so and where they are not being misled into doing so. In some cases, we are dealing with vulnerable consumers who are seeking specific health effects, even if they are not advertised as such. Another principle that should be established is that the greater the health claim, the greater the potential vulnerability and the need for safety. In that respect, information is very important.
	The labelling aspects of the directives have not been stressed enough. They will provide for proper labelling. Yes, there will be a cost to the industry and retailers in providing it, but we support it with regard to food and licensed medicines and it is right that we should support it with regard to an intermediate group of products. The directives are good in that respect. I know that people who feel that there should be freedom to consume also recognise that that must exist in the context of adequate health information. For example, very few hon. Members would ban smoking, but most of us insist that a significant amount of information should be given to people who are especially vulnerable, as they are addicted in many cases.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman is a medical practitioner, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred to smoking. The European Union promotes and subsidises the production of a leaf—tobacco—that is known to cause harm, yet we are considering banning substances that humans have used for many years and have not been proven harmful. What is the logic of that?

Evan Harris: I agree that it is morally outrageous that the European Union subsidises tobacco crops. Many hon. Members feel strongly that such subsidies should end because they cannot be justified, especially when the products are marketed in the developing world. It is therefore consistent, and the hon. Gentleman is consistent, to raise anxieties about that and to be worried about some of the directives' unintended—or, indeed, intended—effects on products that are currently available. I hope to deal with some of those concerns.
	Although I generally agreed with the speech of the hon. Member for Woodspring, he went further than I would go in decrying regulation. I shall revert to that shortly. He was inconsistent when he argued that the directives would send people and users underground and that they would double their dose, go abroad or seek black market sources, because that argument also applies to some softer drugs. He praised the Netherlands, but it is important that hon. Members realise that some countries are consistent in their liberal approach of allowing consumer choice, provided that adequate information exists about a product's safety or health risks. There are health risks associated with, for example, cannabis.
	I do not believe that over-regulation is the problem. We support the principle of regulating food supplements and herbal products, but there are valid concerns about the detail. The directives aim to improve the single market. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) pointed out the difficulties that manufacturers in this country experience in marketing products in other European countries that are stricter. That is the problem with a single market, which the Conservative party supported in the past.
	Safety, information, labelling and public health also need to be tackled. We must take a balanced view, and I am therefore worried about scapegoating the pharmaceutical industry. Although there are problems with pharmaceutical companies, they are not the baddies with regard to the directives. As we have heard, significant commercial resources back those who lobby against the directives or some of their provisions. That does not invalidate their concerns, many of which I share, but the pharmaceutical industry does not have a monopoly on lobbying.
	It is pleasing that some progress has been made in amending the food supplements directive in the European Parliament. My Liberal Democrat colleagues in the European Parliament supported a move to extend the 18-month period for submitting evidence for the harmless nature of a food supplement to at least 36 months. It is regrettable that it is not longer. If the derogation allows the products to be used until 2009, it is strange to set a cut-off date of 2005. The evaluation would not require four years.
	I agree with those who tabled the motion, Consumers for Health Choice and others, that up to 300 nutrients or nutrient sources that are currently in use may not be available, and that that is unsatisfactory. I do not believe that the Minister disputes the numbers. It is worrying that the maximum allowed dosage may not be based on an upper safety threshold. I believe that all hon. Members would support such a basis.
	It is unclear whether the positive list remains open in the way in which the Minister implied when she spoke about the amendment. The positive list remains open only with the provision of the dossier. That places a significant burden on smaller companies, and there is a valid concern that it will be more difficult for established small companies to ensure that their products are included on the positive list. It would be useful if Ministers cleared up the part of the amendment that implies that the positive list remains open without qualification.
	The suggestion that there should be a British positive list could only result in support being given to smaller companies to enable them to work with other people to establish the safety of their product. There is an argument for at least some kind of framework for helping those companies, if not for Government intervention, given that they will be put in a difficult competitive position by the regulations, which will have been difficult for them to foresee when they first marketed and established their product.
	The Government have made progress. They have obtained—or, at least, they claim to have obtained—a derogation to allow the use of existing products until 2009. Their approach goes in the right direction with regard to the maximum permitted safety levels, and there is therefore much to be welcomed in their approach. It could have been worse: they could have taken a very narrow line on these issues. It is, therefore, appropriate to give them our support and wish them luck in future negotiations on these matters.
	A series of amendments to the directive on traditional herbal medicinal products has been tabled in the European Parliament. Again, the position is not as bleak as had first been thought. Liberal Democrat colleagues have supported the amendments to allow the inclusion of non-herbal ingredients such as vitamins and minerals—I suppose that Conservative MEPs will have done so too—and to modify the definition of a herbal medicinal product to mean those products containing pharmacologically active ingredients.

Liam Fox: Those were Conservative amendments.

Evan Harris: I shall put on record that I accept that the hon. Member for Woodspring claims that they were Conservative amendments, but the Conservative party—and its colleagues, such as they are—does not have a majority in the European Parliament and requires the support of other groups to pass such amendments. There is a greater spirit of co-operation, and more recognition of the need to form such coalitions, in the European Parliament than we have here. Amendments tabled to clarify the border between food and herbs and to ensure that the directive does not apply to food supplements or cosmetics were also successful.
	It was regrettable, however, that there was no success in amending some other parts of the directive, and those areas give rise to some concern. First, it needs to be clearly established that combinations will be allowed under the directive, and I hope that the Minister will clarify that point. During an earlier debate of a European Standing Committee, it was not entirely clear that the Government had been reassured on that position. Indeed, it was not clear that the Government even supported the concerns raised by, among others, the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) about whether such combinations would be permitted. It would be useful if the Minister could put his views on that matter clearly on the record.
	It is also regrettable that there is inequality between the amount of traditional use allowed in other parts of the world—where there has been traditional use for longer—and in the European Union, and that we require the passage of a measure through the Council of Ministers even to make progress to 10 years rather than 15 years of European use. An early review will be required to see how the measures are working, but it is not clear that that is to be delivered. It is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that we expect a lot of the Government in regard to the traditional herbal medicinal products directive, which has not yet been published and is therefore not yet in force. The Government claim to seek flexibility on the years of European use necessary, and I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify exactly what his aspirations are in that respect, and what level he would consider unsatisfactory.
	The Government also claim to be trying to reduce the regulatory impact burden on smaller producers of these products, but more substance needs to be put on the bones of that claim. Otherwise, people whose business depends on such action may not believe them. Like the Consumers Association—I, too, shall quote selectively from its briefing—we recognise that
	"there are positive benefits . . . from both of these EU directives"—
	but, in both cases, there is still more work to be done.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must tell the House that a number of hon. Members are clearly seeking to catch my eye, but there is a limited amount of time left. It would, therefore, be helpful if Members could make their remarks as brief as they feel is reasonable.

Alan Simpson: If any Members in the House tonight were medical students in China, they would be given a simple message in the first lecture of the first part of their course: food is our first and strongest medicine. It has the power to cure us and make us well, but it also has the power to kill us. The importance of that in medicine lies in understanding the significance of thresholds and appropriate intakes. Even in this country, a large number of members of the medical profession will happily repeat part of that message. They will tell people that if they were to drink even water in sufficient quantities, it could kill them. For me, the sad thing is that that common ground between our conventional medicine and the traditional medicines of our own country and of the east seems to end there.
	Our medical culture is dominated by a view of medicine written largely by the pharmaceutical companies. As such, we have a medicalised model that addresses, by and large, not health, but ill health. We have a culture that is resistant to the idea of people taking responsibility for their health. No matter how much we say that we want people to be responsible for their health, we increasingly throw up all sorts of obstacles in their path to doing so.
	In some ways, tonight's debate has managed to capture the contradictions of where we are, although it is further complicated by a number of disparate and different interests, which we are trying to encompass in one discussion. We are dealing with two directives involving some common ground, but lots of differences of interest. Also, two Ministries are involved as are, at European level, two different views as to the place of nutritional supplements and traditional herbal remedies in the pattern of health culture.
	In addition, there are two clear political tendencies with interests in the debate. One, which seems to exert a disproportionate influence in the European Union, is pro-standardisation and pro-regulation while the tendency in our country is much more pro-choice and pro-information. I can understand that the negotiations involve genuine differences of view that have to be argued and fought out between those different perceptions.
	As if that were not complicated enough, there are two clearly different sets of lobbying interests—the pharmaceutical industries and some large herbal product suppliers and, on the other side of the equation, members of the public who just want more extensive choices that they are empowered and trusted to make. We have to try to navigate our way between those sets of competing interests.
	For Ministers, the final complication is that, within our advisory system, different views are taken by the Food Standards Agency and the Medicines Control Agency. Members should remember that throughout our debates on nutritional supplements, the MCA has consistently sought to medicalise the health model that applies to traditional herbal remedies and food supplements. We need to try to hold off those interests as separate from and in competition with those being put to us by members of the public and our constituents.
	Let me make it clear that it would be crass for the House not to support the Government amendment. A good amendment has been tabled and, even as a sceptic, I think it incumbent on us to support and understand its importance, because it reflects the negotiating position that the Government seek to occupy. In particular, it is worth supporting because, as I must say for the record, the robust negotiations involving Lord Hunt have presented a formidable challenge to many of the inclinations that people wanted to be written into the first draft of the directive.
	It is important for us to recognise the lobbying and negotiating role played by the Food Standards Agency. A former Minister in this House, the noble Lord Rooker, had the sense to kick some of our earlier debates into touch. He put together a Joint Committee, which is due to report to the Government and to the House this spring. It would be naive and politically dishonest of us to try to pre-empt that. It may turn out that it puts forward a strong position, and most of us who support nutritional supplements and public choice may find it an ally in our negotiations, not a limitation.
	I want to focus on my concerns, which I hope the Minister will heed. The food supplements directive raises issues about potency that we must address. The wording that has so far been used stresses the notion of safe levels. It is important for us to recognise that what some other European countries mean by that is minimum levels. The references to vitamins C and B6 show how problematic that could be. The idea of a safe level of 25 mg of vitamin B6 would be a sad joke to the thousands of British women who regularly take vitamin B6 to maintain their well-being as part of their informed health choice.
	The Minister referred to the adverse effects of an intake of large amounts of vitamin B6—four times the current safe level recommended by the EU, or even eight or 10 times that level. There is no medical evidence to support that claim. People in the Department advise the Minister on the basis of one study alone, the Dalton and Dalton study. It is worth going through that study if one wants to read a piece of hocus-pocus research. The authors have persistently refused to allow their peers to review the data on which they based their recommendations. It is astonishing that researchers have made such far-reaching claims but have refused to let their peers examine the basis on which they were made. I understand that there is one study that may offer a crumb of comfort to them, but as it was a study on dogs rather than people, I suggest that any investigation of its significance should be carried out with caution.
	The Medicines Control Agency has attempted to bounce successive Governments into a medicalised view of regulating these supplements, because it suits its needs and those of the pharmaceutical industry, which would make an awful lot of money out of the process if it were able to capture that market. It would give the agency monopoly control, and it would allow the industry to charge monopoly prices. The vast majority of women who campaigned in opposition to the initial proposals to set ludicrously low limits on the availability of vitamin B6 knew what game they were playing and what was at stake.
	Whatever figure we choose to put on it, there is a problem with having a limited number of nutrients allowed to be registered under the directive. I think that it would be crass of us to say that some of the nutrients that are currently available in the UK would not automatically be covered by the new directive. To go down that path would be to take a serious step backwards, with no medical evidence on which to base our contention.
	I also caution the Minister and other colleagues about going down that path, because it does not make any sense, even in pragmatic terms. In today's globalised information market, if we set foolish, prohibitive and restrictive rules, consumers who have looked into this issue and made their own health choices will go through other channels. They will use mail order or the internet to do so. A more open and regulated market will always be better than the present market, which is prescriptive and pushes more people into making choices outside a formal market framework.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman has voiced many of the anxieties that lie behind our motion, and indeed behind early-day motions signed by many Members. Does he not realise that this motion gives him, and others on both sides of the House, an opportunity to make their point robustly?

Alan Simpson: I do, and the terms of the motion certainly presented an initial attraction. The more I read the Government's amendment, however, the more I saw a compelling case for Members on both sides of the House to support it. We are talking about negotiations that are currently in progress, and our debate should send Ministers a message about where we want the progress to end up. That will, I think, strengthen their position. The message is clear: if we as a Government fail to meet demands made by Members on both sides of the House, Members on both sides of the House will not give their support.
	Let me say something about the proposed directive on traditional herbal medicinal products. I urge the House to be cautious about the catalogue of criticisms that we are offered in relation to the dangers of herbal products. It would sit more easily on my conscience if we had a similar list of the problems associated with manufactured pharmaceutical drugs. The catalogue of health disasters foisted on people by an industry that appears at times to be able literally to get away with murder is scandalous.
	In that context, it is outrageous for us to allow ourselves a distorted debate that fails to recognise the thousands of years of knowledge—especially in the east—of the use of traditional herbal remedies. The issue is not the use of the herb involved, but an understanding of dosage. That has always been the basis of the application of such remedies. The House must not become trapped in a caricature of a debate—an exchange in which scare stories are thrown around, suggesting that if Ayurvedic medicines or different herbs are used there will be terrible consequences for us all. Using such herbs in an informed fashion is arguably one of the best ways of giving people more responsibility for and control over their own well-being, and all parties in the House should welcome that.
	We would like the Minister to return from his negotiation with affirmative answers based on the need to address the existence of products that have been on the market for some time, and ought not to be outside the loop of existing or proposed legislation. We should oppose the suggestion that no new products should be brought on to the market even if they have been available in another EU country and have a good safety record. We should recognise that the standards for manufacturing of such products must relate to food safety rather than medicinal standards. We should allow more emphasis to be put on labelling, rather than on the restriction of dosages.
	One question relating to how the markets will function after the two directives are agreed on and become operative will concern the number and nature of suppliers. The costs of compliance will have a profound effect on the range and character of the choices that the public face.
	Therefore, I hope that the Minister will agree tonight to commit the United Kingdom to five clear points at the negotiations. The UK must reserve a position that gives it the right to derogations, otherwise the consensus would be for a market that was so restricted that it was diametrically opposed to everything that the UK has built up. We must emphasise upper safety levels rather than minimum risk restrictions. We must have a commitment to abolish the arbitrary period that a herbal product must be on the EU market before it is allowed to register. We must press for maximum rights to clear information about product labelling, and minimum presumptions that positive health choices need to be medicalised rather than just publicised. Finally, we must try to set the lowest possible price hurdles for product registration in each of the respective markets.
	Consumer choice will depend not on the assurances of agencies or Ministers but on the freedoms, derogations and choices that end up being written into the legislation or directives. The UK is committed to a strong negotiating position. The message that must come from the House is that we must deliver on that position if the House eventually is to offer any support to the final directives that come through.

David Tredinnick: My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is to be congratulated on his choice of debate this evening and on the eloquent way in which he set out his stall and explained in great detail some of the problems that we face. I will try to add a little colour to what he said.
	Talking of colour, I straight away refer to the Minister's speech. She presented an amazingly rosy picture of the Government's approach and what they have done in the past few months. I am astonished to hear her blame organisations such as Consumers for Health Choice for scaremongering, and others for distributing leaflets when it is the very fact that they generated interest among the public that brought the Government to their senses and got them to act in the first place.
	If the Minister casts her mind back to the spring of last year, the Department of Health was in disarray on the matter. It was impossible for any of the manufacturers such as the ones to which the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) referred to see a Minister to put their case. It was not until her Department agreed to meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), and industry experts on 17 June to discuss the problems that the Department became aware of what was going on. The only reason why the Minister and Lord Hunt agreed to meet us then was that the next day they were going before Standing Committee C and they were going to get a right grilling.
	In the Minister's defence, she had just taken over the brief from, from memory, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). It was not easy to go before that Committee at that time but she did and she defended herself in an honourable way, on the basis that she had very little knowledge of the subject; that is a slightly double-edged compliment.
	We have many specific concerns about the directive and they have been listed this evening: unreasonably requiring 30 years' continuous medical use; unreasonable demands for compliance; the exclusion of safe and popular products; and leaving many combination products outside the directive's remit. I should like to look at some of those in turn but, to give an example of how wrong the Government got it, they had to extend the consultation period on the herbal directive. It was not an achievement to extend the consultation period; it happened because the Government were behind the game. That was the problem. On 18 June, the Minister appeared before the Standing Committee and had a pretty rough time of it. It was only then that we saw some action.
	The Minister has given a typically upbeat, new Labourish presentation. [Interruption.] She shakes her head—perhaps she is part of old Labour, but she has given such a presentation. However, I do not want to get her into any trouble. In her rather clever debating style, she managed to focus on the few rogue problems that have occurred in the herbal industry. She referred to aristolochia, as I knew she would. We have surely been round that track before: the mis-prescription of a wrongly labelled drug by the wrong practitioners at the wrong time for the wrong purposes, and the resulting problems. She has gone on about the hoary old chestnut of steroids in creams—yes, we know all about that—and one or two other matters.
	The Minister has tried to distract us from the issue. No one on this side of the House wants unsafe remedies on the market, and it is a good thing that two professional committees, under Professor Pitillo and Lord Chan, are looking at herbal medicine and Chinese acupuncture, and trying to draw the strands together in this country. No one is suggesting for one second that we want unsafe products on the shelves. The real problem is that the shelves will be denuded if this Government do not get their act together. I am very relieved to hear that, almost at the last fence, the Minister has got some good news on combination therapies.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) mentioned the dangers of herbal medicines when compared with other products, as did the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). I nearly described the latter as my hon. Friend—perhaps because we once led a march together. I have looked up the figures. In 1997, the last year for which figures were provided, 562 people died from taking paracetamol, and 51 died from taking aspirin. In his winding-up speech, the Minister who is to reply might like to tell us how many people in this country have died from eating parsley, or from taking most of the other herbs that are obtainable in stores such as Holland and Barrett. The Minister made much of this issue, but the fact is that the number of herbs that have caused health problems is very small indeed. Generally speaking, such problems have occurred because of incorrect labelling and rogue marketing. We obviously welcome a tightening up in that regard, but we do not want this Government to be rolled over and knocked about by members of the Commission or the European Parliament because they failed to present Britain's case effectively.
	The really big issues that we are considering through the motion are borderline products and the combination products of herbs, vitamins and minerals. The Minister made much of the positive lists, which she says are still open, but she has said little about the costs that manufacturers will have to incur if they are not on those lists. Even if they are on those lists, they will still have to produce complex dossiers—[Interruption.] I note that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South is nodding. They will also have to clear the hurdles set by the Medicines Control Agency. That will of course result in restriction of choice—my party stands for choice, not restriction—and it will prove damaging to the industry as a whole. Are the Government really in favour of monopolies in this field? What will happen to the small producers? I am slightly suspicious of the position taken by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, because I have a feeling that he is representing only the larger manufacturers, such as the one in his constituency. We should focus much more on the little people. We do not want them to be wiped out.
	I was pleased to hear today from the Minister about the new negotiations on simplified procedures. That announcement conveniently slipped out today in order to take the wind out of our sails, and having seen what happened in the Department before the Minister participated in Standing Committee C, I have no conscience about offering such criticism. We have all called for simplified procedures, and we want vitamins, herbs and minerals to be sold in this country as they were in the past. This has been a bone of contention, and although the Minister says that everything is wonderful and that they have been on top of the situation the entire time, that simply is not the case. She must accept that fact—[Interruption.] I do not know whether she is smiling or blushing, but it would not surprise me if she were upset at thinking about what happened in the past.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred to the work of MEPs. The Government are not responsible for the amendments to the traditional herbal medicines directive; that responsibility lies with John Bowis, MEP, the former Member for Battersea. I spoke to him on the telephone at some length this afternoon. I said, "Put me straight. What have the Government actually done?" He replied, "Precious little. They let it coast along. They did not intend to do much." Only the pressure that has been brought to bear on them has caused them to take any action at all. The amendments are nothing to do with the Government. They were produced by the Conservatives in the European Parliament and include amendment No. 1, which concerns easier registration, and Nos. 9 and 11, which are about combinations. Some of them are supported by the Liberal Democrats—I will give them that.
	The awful truth is that the letters sent out by Lord Hunt in the summer were intended to lull us into a false sense of security, but it is possible that the amendments will be rejected and that we will be in a worse situation than we were in the spring. Perhaps when he winds up the debate the Under-Secretary will tell us whether there is a guarantee that the amendments will be accepted. In this case, the big gun wheeled out by the Government was inertia. They let the issue drag on. It is only the determination of certain groups to bring the subject to people's attention and to needle the Government about it that has brought them kicking and screaming to the point where they take the issues seriously.
	The Council of Ministers, which is made up of national representatives, will have an impact on the matter, and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), should get in there and make strong points. We want to see a little fire in her belly and a little action. We do not want to hear from our representatives in Europe that nothing much is going on. The former Member for Battersea is a very honourable man, and in our conversation earlier we were not trying to make political points. I asked him what line I should take in this debate, and he said that not much has been done about the matter. It is not very good.
	The Minister still has time to effect change. The Government should introduce proposals that would allow the UK to set national rules to permit the continued sale of products that are safe and appropriately labelled, but which may lie outside the restricted code. They should abolish the completely arbitrary period for which a product must have been on the EU market before being allowed registration. That period has no relation with the availability of safe data. Finally—the Government can certainly do this—they should end the attempts by the Medicines Control Agency to regulate herbal medicines as if they were pharmaceutical drugs, thus reducing compliance costs. We are talking about the third way, which has been referred to in the past. That was part of earlier legislation but it was never implemented.
	I turn briefly to the food supplements directive. We have already heard about the problem of minimum dosage levels, and the hon. Members for Nottingham, South and for Bolton, South-East have spoken about the pressure in Europe to reduce the maximum permitted levels of vitamins. If the Government do not stand up and sort this out, it will simply be a tax on poor people. They will buy the amount that they want—they will buy on the internet and get the products from abroad—but they will have to pay three times as much. The Government must stand up and be counted. It is wrong that we should be forced to reduce the levels of vitamins when 20 per cent. of the nation are using supplements and complementary therapies. It is time for the Government to be tough.
	The possible effects of the directives include the loss of thousands of safe, popular herbal products, completely unnecessary restrictions on consumer choice, substantial job losses in the retail sector, the bankruptcy of several specialist manufacturers and retailers, an adverse impact on public health and a substantial increase in the number of visits to general practitioners.
	The Government's approach to the directives has been the most appalling example of inertia, muddle, late action, refusal to consult, defensiveness and, if not deception, at least sleight of hand. We are often told, as we have been tonight, that everything will be all right in the end, but the amendments could be thrown out and worse could come. We shall not avoid problems in the future. The Government have done far too little, far too late, but I hope that some good may come out of it.

Brian Iddon: I want to make a few new points.
	The pharmaceutical industry has been accused of being behind the directives and promoting them for its own benefit. I do not believe that. The pharmaceutical industry was born from natural products. Many of the drugs that we use nowadays are derived from plants, roots, berries and tree bark. Salicylic acid, for example, comes from the bark of the willow tree, and then turns into acetyl-salicylic acid or aspirin. Many of our modern drugs follow similar pathways.
	I should like to tell the House a funny story about a late friend of mine, Dr. Michael Scrowston, who used to lecture in my subject at the university of Hull. Over many, many years, he collected a large number of beautiful plants from all over the world, potted them and nurtured them in his greenhouse. He gave lectures on how the modern drugs industry was derived from the plants described in little books such as the one I have in my hand. On one occasion, he set out a wonderful display of plants on the lecture bench in front of him; there were beautiful flowers such as the autumn crocus and some extremely rare plants. When he had finished his lecture, the lady from the Women's Institute who had invited him said, "Dr. Scrowston, how wonderful of you to bring all those amazing plants for the raffle", and he lost the lot.
	I do not want the Government to underestimate the public reaction that always occurs when new legislation is introduced in this policy area. If the public were not fully behind the natural health products industry, how could it have achieved such growth? The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) has just referred to ML" 249. When it was under discussion a few years ago, there was a march from Hyde park and a rally in Trafalgar square. I still cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman and I stood on the plinth of Nelson's column talking to a large gathering about ML" 249. Probably, nobody had ever heard of it, apart from the people in Trafalgar square on that day. Thousands of people came from all over the country because they were annoyed about a European directive that has long since passed into law.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has pointed out, more than 20 Members, including him, have presented petitions to Parliament expressing concern about the directives relating to the UK health products industry that we are debating. Altogether, there are more than 1 million signatures and the petition is one of the largest presented to Parliament in modern times. Just before Christmas, I presented six boxes, which alone contained 350,000 signatures. Those petitions are still coming in and they show that people in every corner of the country—in all our counties and nations—are extremely concerned about what is going on. The Government should not lose sight of that fact.
	As of today, 165 hon. Members have signed my early-day motion 278 on the food supplements directive and 164 Members have signed early-day motion 279 on the traditional herbal medicinal products directive. That, too, demonstrates the concern expressed to us by our constituents.

Annette Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Brian Iddon: I have little time, so the hon. Lady will forgive me. If my constituents cannot purchase health products from a local shop, they will not blame the European Parliament but the Government. They may be tempted to purchase such products on the internet or from mail order catalogues that may not be manufactured to the standards that they have come to expect. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) tells me that he has seen health products on sale at car boot sales. Not much regulation there.
	Many people, myself included, like to keep as far away from our doctors—with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)—as possible and self-medicate minor ailments. If popular over-the-counter products are removed by legislation, there is a slight possibility that general practitioners and even hospitals will be under greater pressure.
	The food supplements directive is almost set in stone. It appeared in the Official Journal of the European Commission in July 2002 and must be implemented by our Government in July this year. I am glad that the Government have stressed safety as the important factor. Government representatives have worked hard on putting their arguments across in the Council of Ministers and its working parties, where people from less liberal regimes on the continent are pressing for topping up the nutritional requirement a little.
	The European Union Scientific Committee on Food has already published a list of recommended daily doses to be enshrined in the final directive. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the ad hoc committee on vitamins and minerals that was established following the vitamin B6 fiasco which has now become part of the Food Standards Agency. In May, it will report its own recommended levels. I have already indicated the disparity that might exist, particularly in respect of vitamin B6. The European recommended level is 25 mg but people in this country are taking 100 mg and up to 200 mg per day—most of them without any adverse effects. In any event, if they exhibit peripheral neuropathy, it is reversible if they lower the dose or stop taking B6.
	We can all adhere to the safety requirements that are enshrined in the directive on herbal remedies but it requires manufacturers to adopt pharmaceutical processes that will add costs, because it requires each batch of herbal remedy to be tested. Industry estimates may be over the top but I have been given a figure of £2,000 per batch. Smaller organisations prepare about 10 batches of the same product every week, so a lot of money would be added to the cost of producing a particular product. Some companies handle 100 products, so that requirement could soon mount up to £200,000 of extra costs for a small or medium-sized enterprise.
	This afternoon, some of us put that concern to the Minister in the other place with responsibilities for the herbal remedies directive. He assured us that he does not want any small or medium-sized enterprises going out of business as a result of imposing such regulations on the industry. I am sure that manufacturers will be pleased with that news, as we were.
	However, there are other costs. The cost of registering the product may also be about £2,000 per product. The industry has set a figure of £15,000 on the cost of preparing the dossier on each product because specialist advice will have to be taken. I accept that those ballpark figures are over the top, but nevertheless, if they are imposed on small and medium-sized enterprises, they may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
	We do not want those small and medium-sized enterprises to go out of business. We want to preserve the competition that exists in the industry. We do not want the large concerns—Holland and Barrett has been mentioned, but there are many others—to begin to attain monopoly positions. I, too, am concerned about the extra costs that both directives, particularly the herbal remedies directive, will impose on the industry.
	I will vote for the Government amendment because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South has suggested, it clearly enshrines words that tell us that the Government are still manoeuvring on both directives, particularly on the herbal remedies directive. I wish the Government a fair wind in achieving what the British people expect them to achieve, so that our consumers do not suffer from a reduction in the wonderful choice that they already have in health product shops.

David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on his speech. He echoed many of my concerns on these issues, but I particularly want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), because there is no doubt at all that, although people might smile gently as he gets to his feet, he has done all constituents and hon. Members a great service in bringing this very important subject to our attention.
	The Minister has popped out of the Chamber briefly, so I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), will pass on my remarks. In her speech, she sought to charm and reassure the House. There is no doubt at all that she succeeded in charming the House, but I have to tell her that she did not reassure hon. Members.
	I should also like the Under-Secretary to pass on to the Minister the fact that I had not realised until now that she was a highly accomplished joke teller. In fact, so good were her jokes that I shall include them in after-dinner speeches in the future. She told the House that the Government are not about the nanny state. Well, I had to scrape myself up off the floor. For goodness' sake, if the Government are not about the nanny state, they are not about anything. They interfere in anything and everything. That is why the country is such a mess, and the sooner my colleagues get their act together and replace them with a good Conservative Government, the better for all of us. The Minister then had the nerve to talk about the Government's creativity. We all applaud their creativity in reannouncing things time after time and in duping the general public, but she certainly did not reassure the House.
	Unless the food supplements directive is changed, it will result in the loss of up to 300 currently available safe nutrients. That is certainly causing great distress to my constituents. Unless the traditional herbal medicinal products directive is changed, it will result in the loss from the United Kingdom market of a wide range of safe and popular herbal remedies, as the hon. Members for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) said. That is a very serious matter, and many of our constituents our worried that a large number of products that are mixtures of nutrients, vitamins and herbs could be lost.
	I would like a derogation from the food supplements directive so that the United Kingdom may continue to allow products to be sold, provided that it is satisfied that they are safe and appropriately labelled, even if they fall outside the technical restrictions of the directive. Furthermore, there should be added to the list of 300 permitted nutrients and nutrient sources those that are currently missing but that are accepted as safe by the UK authorities prior to the deadline of July 2005.
	On the first of the directives, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth has blown the Government's position out of the water, following his conversation with one of our representatives in the European Parliament. I would like active lobbying by the Government to ensure that maximum permitted levels for nutrients are set at acceptable levels, not the restrictive ones preferred by France and Germany.
	On the traditional herbal medicinal products directive, I would like a derogation from the directive to allow the United Kingdom to introduce national rules to permit the continued sale of products that are safe and appropriately labelled, but which may otherwise lie outside its restrictive scope. Furthermore, the completely arbitrary period for which a product must have been on the European Union market before being allowed registration should be abolished. Finally, I want an end to attempts by the Medicines Control Agency to regulate herbal remedies as though they were pharmaceutical drugs, thus reducing compliance costs.

Mark Todd: First, I want to set out one principle: consumers in the perfect world—at the moment, we have something close to this—should be free to purchase food supplements and herbal remedies that are not harmful or marketed dishonestly. In my view, the issue of scientific efficacy should be largely irrelevant to that process, provided that no claims are made to that efficacy.
	As a result of a liberal regime run roughly on that principle, we have an extremely diverse marketplace, in which there are small, niche retailers and one can also purchase many of those products in large supermarkets. There are manufacturers who design and develop specific products for very narrow marketplaces, and bulk manufacturers—I have been criticised for having one in my constituency, but I am delighted to have it and to argue for its interests, among others—who supply the supermarket sector and other sectors.
	However, we must strike a balance. We seek a free European marketplace and a position in the provision of those products in which some of our citizens can visit another European Union country, receive broadly the same treatment when they get there and buy goods on the same terms. We should all share that aspiration, but it is not a process in which our view can be imposed unilaterally on our colleagues. That was made clear in a wise speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), who dwelt on the different cultures and perspectives in relation to this subject. We cannot impose our will; compromise is required.
	I have spoken on these topics previously, and I compliment the Government on making substantial progress on this issue. It is undoubtedly true that more remains to be done, but we should be positive about what has been done so far and recognise that the balance of these goals—between individual choice, our liberal values and the requirements of a free market—requires compromise. That balance will undoubtedly affect our marketplace, and it is important that we recognise that. It is particularly likely to affect—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick)—small niche players, both as retailers and as manufacturers. By eliminating some of the higher dose and more marginal products to which some of our European partners are particularly averse, we may remove the competitive advantage in the marketplace of some smaller players. That would be true in any other industry; it must be true in this. It will aid consolidation and maturity in the market—that would probably happen anyway—but I am not sure that that is the role of Governments.
	We may also impede new product development, and I will listen to what the Minister has to say about that in winding up. In particular, we may impede the development of products that use familiar ingredients in novel combinations. It is important to have greater clarity about how we deal with the development of the marketplace, because we cannot freeze the products in aspic and suggest that that is all that consumers will want in the future. It is a fast-developing sector, with new demands from consumers, and we need a clear framework by which new products can be added to the marketplace for our consumers and those of other European Union states to enjoy and use. If we do not do that, we will inevitably encourage the use of the internet to purchase the products.
	Many manufacturers, such as Peter Black in my constituency, seek to make more formal claims for their products than heretofore. In a maturing marketplace, one should not expect people simply to rely on recommendations in magazines or informal endorsements. It should be possible for a manufacturer to make clear endorsements of a product and statements of its effects. Manufacturers such as Peter Black wish to do that and recognise that it requires a tougher regulatory framework if they are to do so. They would welcome that.
	Manufacturers also recognise—we should commend this aim in any case—that we need tighter quality controls. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to notable examples of poor quality control that exposed consumers to risk. We need to recognise that, as consumers become more demanding, they expect the highest possible quality and we should aid them in that goal.
	What should Ministers do in the remaining negotiations? First, we need to ensure that we set for ourselves the lightest possible touch for our regulatory activity. I particularly point the finger at the Medicines Control Agency, which, as several Members have said, does not have a track record of sympathy for the sector. It is important that it understands its responsibility not to crush innovation and stifle consumer choice through the dead hand of an institution that is used to dealing with very large companies.
	Secondly, we need continually to review the effect of the framework on the way in which the industry and marketplace operate, so that innovation and learning from experience are permitted. We should not stifle that process. Finally, we need to make sure that negotiations aim at safety as the prime goal but with the widest possible choice. To stray down the route of seeking proof of medical effect that some of our European counterparts may suggest to our negotiators would be dangerous. We have taken a consistent intellectual path until now, and we should persist in that.

Chris Grayling: This has been a timely and important debate on an issue that has prompted a million people around the country to lobby their Members of Parliament, sign petitions and otherwise express their great concern about something that affects many people.
	The debate provides the House with an opportunity to make its views clear to the Government. Many Members on both sides have signed early-day motions both in this Session and in the last expressing their concerns about these matters. Indeed, the motion on which the House will vote tonight reflects the views of more than 160 Members from all parties, including 88 Labour MPs, who signed two of those early-day motions.
	Our debate began with a spirited attack by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on the flaws in the two directives. He also made telling points about the torrent of regulation from Brussels and its impact on our manufacturing firms. The Minister unsurprisingly defended the directives on public health grounds. More worryingly, she said that many of the products in the health sector were "pretty dangerous". If that is the case, the Government ought to take urgent action under existing legislation. Why are products that the Minister regards as pretty dangerous on sale in this country? She also admitted that many companies would have to reformulate their products, but appeared not to understand the cost to manufacturers. In their amendment, the Government make a disingenuous claim about the list system, implying that it will still be possible for products to remain on an exclusively British list. There is no formal evidence in the wording of any of the legislative documents on the measure to suggest that that is true.
	Turning to the contributions of the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), the wording of tonight's motion is drawn from two early-day motions that they signed. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East proposed tabling them. Will he vote tonight against the very words that he suggested and, if so, what message does that send to the community outside that is concerned about the measures, and what will that do to his credibility in those circles? I very much hope that he will reflect on what he has said and join us in the Lobby.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) accused the Government of painting far too rosy a picture. If anyone in the House knows about that, he does, and I pay tribute to all the work in this area that he has done over the months and years. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) talked about the distress in his constituency about the likely impact of the measures. That distress is shared across the country, as the two directives will have stark effects. The food supplements directive creates an approved list of nutrients which the European Commission will permit for use in foodstuffs. Almost 300 ingredients, however, will disappear even though they are currently deemed safe in the UK. In 2005, those products will become illegal. We may get an extension to 2009, but people who swear by those products to treat illnesses like osteoporosis, ME, digestive disorders, stress and bronchitis will lose the right to buy them.
	The only way for those products to remain legal is for manufacturers to submit, at a cost of many tens of thousands of pounds, a dossier to the European Commission, effectively applying to allowed to keep on the market the products that they are selling today. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) last year, the Government admitted that the initial cost of the dossiers would be between £80,000 and £250,000, which would result in an additional cost to the industry of £24 million to carry on selling products that are sold legally and safely today. That point was recognised by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who said that small manufacturers who cannot afford the cost of the measures will suffer.
	This morning, I walked down the aisles of the Holland and Barrett store in Epsom past product after product that will become illegal under the two directives. However, they are popular and are selling well and safely. That is the absurdity of the current situation—a small manufacturer of a perfectly safe nutrient that has been on sale for years will lose the right to sell it in future unless he pay tens of thousands of pounds for the privilege. In my view, that is a scandal. If that were not enough, the directive sets maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals. At first glance, that appears sensible, but the maximum levels bear no relation to safety—they are simply a compromise with the norm in other countries. In Italy and Germany, there has traditionally been a different approach to the use of vitamins. Almost every one of the vitamin tablets that I saw when I walked around the store this morning will have to be modified if it is to continue under the directive.
	When hon. Members walk into their supermarket next weekend, they should look at the vitamin C tablets on the shelves. The vast majority of the vitamin C tablets sold in this country will become illegal under the new directive. There is no suggestion that they are dangerous. There is a long tradition of using vitamin C in those doses in this country, so what on earth is the rationale for turning those tablets into an illegal product?
	Even the Government admit that the restrictions will be a disaster for the industry. The former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), stated in a written answer last year:
	"Setting unnecessarily low maximum permitted levels for nutrients in food supplements is likely to have a detrimental impact on the viability of the United Kingdom's specialist food manufacturers and on UK consumer choice."—[Official Report, 30 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 765W.]
	She is right and we agree with her. Why are the Government not taking tougher action to deal with the matter?
	Even the European Commission, in the small print to the directives, admits that the measures will have an adverse effect on small and medium-sized enterprises—the manufacturers. Surely it is not right that, for no reason, we are placing a burden on those businesses that may make it difficult for many of them to survive. It is not good legislation, and it is not too late for the Government and the House to reject it.
	The food supplements directive is only part of the story. The traditional herbal medicinal products directive could have an equally serious impact on smaller manufacturers. The Government say that their goal is to provide a proper regulatory framework for herbal medicines, and to provide improved protection for the public. No one on either side of the House would disagree with the desirability of maintaining public safety, but the measure is tantamount to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, like so many of the regulations introduced by the Government since 1997.
	Once again, the improvements that the Commission and the Government seek will be achieved only at the expense of the manufacturers—literally. They face bills of thousands of pounds to secure approval for products that have been selling in the UK for years, and possibly even decades or longer. Many smaller manufacturers cannot afford to pay the bill. As a result, their businesses may disappear. Even if the manufacturers can afford to pay the bill, they may not be given the opportunity to do so, because the directive requires manufacturers to prove that a product has been on the market for 30 years, and for 10 or perhaps 15 of those years in Europe, in order for it to be eligible for licensing in the future. If it has not, it will be banned in perpetuity. As a result, many products that have been introduced over the past few years will disappear.
	Let me share with the House the words of one of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who wrote:
	"I know of many people who cannot find a cure for their particular ailment through the NHS and opt for self-help using natural remedies. To deny them is to deny them their health."
	I know that those anxieties are shared in the constituency of every hon. Member. I suspect that there is not a Member in the Chamber who has not received representations on the issue. The wording of the motion has been carefully chosen to reflect those representations and the concerns expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House. It has been designed to give Parliament the opportunity to state its view—to allow us to act on behalf of a huge number of the people whom we represent, which is, after all, what we are here for.
	The two measures will do real damage to businesses around the country. They will do little to improve public safety. The authorities already enjoy the power to tackle areas of concern quickly and effectively. When the measures become law—which I hope they do not—people who have used the products for years and believe that they have made a difference to their lives will find that they are no longer able to buy them in their local health food shops or their supermarket. Do Ministers honestly believe that that means they will stop buying them? Instead, they will buy products from overseas by mail order or via the internet, from suppliers in countries where the rules do not apply—countries where health and safety and quality checks are not present, and where the contents of the products cannot be guaranteed.
	I believe that some simple principles should underlie legislation in this area. Consumer choice should not be reduced unless there are genuine safety reasons for doing so. No manufacturer should have to pay thousands of pounds to continue to sell a product that they have been selling safely for years. We should not ban safe and legitimate products in the United Kingdom simply to achieve harmonisation across Europe.
	Opposition Members believe that the two directives fail on all those counts. I know that that view is shared by many hon. Members in all parties. I believe that the measures do not have the confidence of the House, and tonight presents us with an opportunity to send them back to the drawing board. I very much hope that the House will take that opportunity.

David Lammy: I warmly congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken in a very good debate on this very important subject. We have heard some excellent speeches delivered with passion and conviction. In particular, strong speeches were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd).
	The debate started with the speech of the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—[Interruption.] Indeed, he is an hon. Member. It is fair to say that he set the tone for the contributions made from the Opposition Benches. His speech was perhaps the most animated contribution that I have heard him make, I suspect because it was not about health, but about Europe. We know from his speech and his suggestion that we live in a Euro-nanny state that his sentiments are shared by the majority of those on his Benches and that his speech must have been written by a nanny with a handbag in another place.

Desmond Swayne: Sir John Krebs states in his letter to us of 17 December that 300 sources are currently omitted by the directive. Nevertheless, we will be able to continue to use them until 2009 should evidence of their safety be presented by July 2005. If evidence of their safety will preserve their use until 2009, why will we have to do without them thereafter?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman refers to 300 sources; the motion refers to 270.

Desmond Swayne: rose—

David Lammy: What we need from the Opposition is some clarification. As my hon. Friend—

Desmond Swayne: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Desmond Swayne: The hon. Gentleman asked for clarification.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is clearly in need of some supplements.

Desmond Swayne: rose—

David Lammy: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me to answer the question, I can say that the issue is about nutrient sources and not the nutrients themselves. I shall go on to explain that issue further.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made a slightly rambling contribution, as expected, in which he took a number of different positions. Presumably, they were assigned to different audiences. None the less, he asked a couple of important questions. He asked whether combinations were permitted. Yes, of course they are. He also asked for clarification about positive lists and whether they were still open. Indeed, in order to add substances to the positive lists, safety dossiers will have to be submitted. They need to be submitted by 12 July 2005. That is the position and we are clear about it. It sits alongside the derogation that we obtained leading up to 2009.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South made a very measured and reflective contribution in support of the Government. He expressed his concern about nutrients that may be prohibited and may no longer be available in the UK. There is an important difference between nutrients and nutrient sources. My hon. Friend listed several sources, which may continue. However, time is available for contributions to the list.

Liam Fox: The Under-Secretary avoids the crucial point. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, if a dossier is presented before 2005, and a substance is subsequently made available, why should it become unavailable again after 2009? That is ludicrous.

David Lammy: That is not ludicrous. We are considering public safety—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman did not use the term "public safety" when he opened the debate. We are considering public safety in the absence of regulation. That is why we are having the debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South also mentioned traditional use. The consultation period was extended to allow contributions on that, but few were forthcoming. There are serious issues to consider about herbal remedies outside Europe. There have been unfortunate instances of contamination, for example, metal and other substances have contaminated Chinese and Indian medicines.
	The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) made a rambling contribution in which he made familiar points about his favourite single issue. [Interruption.] Indeed, he took 10 minutes to say little. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Swayne is becoming very excited. In fact, he may need some medication because he is out of order. I advise him to try to listen to the Under-Secretary calmly. It helps.

David Lammy: Doom and gloom pervaded much of the speech of the hon. Member for Bosworth.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East made an excellent contribution. As a chemist, he brought considerable experience to the debate. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) also spoke. However, his jokes were poor. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire made a helpful contribution in his usual reflective manner.
	Hon. Members will remember that, after the general election, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) pronounced that his party should be quiet about Europe. He is also keen to portray the Conservative party as the party that will help the vulnerable and champion the needs of children in our inner cities. Just as the Christmas decorations were coming down in homes all over the country, and children were preparing to return to school, the Opposition did a U-turn on that issue.

David Maclean: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 309.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 151.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House recognises, in relation to the Food Supplements Directive, the Government's firm commitment to the view that the law should allow safe and properly-labelled food supplements to be freely marketed; welcomes its intention to take advantage of flexibility, secured by the UK, to permit continued use of substances not on the permitted lists where products comply with existing UK food safety legislation; notes that the impact on the long-term availability of products currently on the market will depend upon future developments on maximum limits and lists of permitted nutrients; supports the Government's efforts to press the case for any maximum limits which may be established at EU level to be based on thorough scientific risk assessments; further recognises that the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would introduce regulatory arrangments to set safety and quality standards for unlicensed herbal remedies, and introduce systematic consumer information about the safe use of products and permit companies to make claims; further notes that the proposed Directive is supported by most interest groups, who believe it will protect public health and boost consumer confidence in herbal medicines; further welcomes the progress of the Government in negotiations for more flexibility to take account of valid evidence of traditional use from outside the European Union and to permit herbal nutrient combination remedies; and further welcomes the stated willingness of the Herbal Forum, representing all UK manufacturers' trade associations in the sector, to work with the Medicines Control Agency to minimise regulatory impact, consistent with the need to protect public health.

Liam Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion relating to the previous debate was taken from two early-day motions, 278 and 279, from the last Session. That was done with the intention of allowing Members of Parliament to vote in the House for something that they had put their name to on paper. Yet bizarrely, several members of the Labour party actually voted against the early-day motion that they had put their name to in the House.
	We do expect Members to act consistently, although we understand that all are free to change their minds. However, would it not be only honourable for Members who have actually voted against their own early-day motions now to withdraw their names from them? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can answer the point of order, if the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) will allow me. As the hon. Gentleman said, hon. Members are free to change their minds. [Interruption.] Order. Of course, that is why we have debates: so that hon. Members can be swayed by persuasive words.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Dioxins, Furans and Polychlorinated Biphenyls

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13438/01, Commission Communication on a Community strategy for dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls; and supports the Government's objective that effective and proportionate measures are taken across the European Union in order to reduce emissions of, and exposure to, these substances, and to meet national, other regional and global commitments.—[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Airguns

Bill Etherington: The petition that I present tonight has been signed by almost 10,000 people from in and around the city of Sunderland. I must give great credit to those who were responsible for obtaining the majority of those signatures: to Monique Swan, whose name is appended to the petition, and to the Sunderland Echo, which has campaigned vigorously on the vexatious question of airguns. It is some weeks since this petition was lodged, and I am pleased that we seem to be making some progress.
	The petition states:
	The petition of residents of the city of Sunderland
	Declares that stricter legislation and licensing of airguns throughout the country is needed to safeguard the public.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to restrict the purchase, ownership, hire and use of airguns and ammunition to persons aged 18 years and over, and to establish a comprehensive and strictly enforceable firearms licensing system and secure storage and transport protocols for all owners and users of airguns.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Natural Health Products

Paul Farrelly: Appropriately, I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by 240 people, on behalf of Keith Woolley, a constituent of mine who is proprietor of the Boots health and herbal store in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
	The petition states:
	The petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters
	Declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons require that the Secretary of State for Health do all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural products.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

DOG WELFARE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]

Andrew Rosindell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity this evening to speak up for man's best friend and to bring the issue of dog welfare before the House. Millions of British people, including many of our constituents, either own or have owned a dog. There are an equally large number of dog lovers in Britain who recognise the importance of these creatures in the lives of humankind. I am therefore certain that hon. Members will agree that we all have a responsibility to be concerned for their well-being.
	You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of my close interest in dog issues over many years. During the past decade in particular, I have had the privilege of working with some of the most dedicated and committed campaigners on dog issues. Indeed, I would like to begin by paying tribute to some of those people and the organisations that they represent. They include Clarissa Baldwin of the National Canine Defence League, whose famous slogan, "A dog is for life, not just for Christmas", has probably saved the lives of thousands of dogs up and down this land, and Ronnie Irving, Phil Buckley and Caroline Kisko of the Kennel Club, whose work in the dog world goes far beyond the wildest expectations of any dog lover, ranging from welfare issues to dog shows, breeding and, of course, the Westminster dog of the year competition.
	Juliette Glass of the "Fury" Defence Fund has been a personal inspiration to me. She is always there with an open ear and friendly advice to people all over the country who have problems in the dog world. Juliette has helped to save many dogs from immediate death, following the implementation of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, prior to its amendment. Battersea dogs home does miraculous work in looking after dogs that have been cast out by cruel and irresponsible people. Today I had the privilege of visiting the home. I met staff and volunteers, as well as some of their four-legged boarders, including Rex the singing collie, Teddy the Staffordshire bull terrier and Snoopy the greyhound. I am sure that I echo the views of hon. Members in paying tribute to Battersea dogs home for its caring work in helping to give deserted dogs a fresh start in life.
	As a former owner of a Staffordshire bull terrier, I also briefly mention Staffordshire Bull Terrier Rescue, the Sussex branch of which is run by Joanna Mason—a more caring person I have yet to meet. I am also honoured to have been asked to become a honorary member of both the East Anglian Staffordshire bull terrier club, which includes the county of Essex, the Staffordshire bull terrier club itself, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier Welfare. The more I work with those organisations, the greater is my determination as a Member of Parliament to help to secure a better future for our canine friends.
	I was also pleased last year to be asked to become the chief patron of Justice for Dogs, a charity that exists to offer free legal advice and assistance on all matters relating to canine welfare and to encourage the formation of groups throughout the UK working for better education on responsible dog ownership. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that groups such as this, which face no easy task, and work on a shoestring budget, are often the only hope for dog owners who have been trampled on due to breed-specific legislation, of which I will speak in greater detail a little later.
	Dog ownership goes way beyond the daily walk and a bowl of water. The individuals and organisations I mentioned, as well as others too numerous to mention this evening, do a magnificent job in representing and protecting our canine friends. Dogs are inherently loyal creatures. They will always stand by us as our best friend. Most important, they never stab us in the back.
	Hon. Members will be aware that until last year, I, too, owned a dog: a Staffordshire bull terrier called Spike. Sadly, he passed away on St. George's day. My hon. Friends know that Spike stood by me at every step of my political career. Dressed in his trademark Union jack waistcoat, he accompanied me on my first victorious campaign when I was elected a councillor in Romford in 1990.
	As the hon. Members for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) and for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) will recall, Spike trudged the streets of Glasgow, Provan with me during the 1992 general election and in Thurrock in 1997. On both occasions, he shared my disappointment when I failed to be elected to Parliament. Finally, he stood by my side as I was elected Member of Parliament for Romford in June 2001—a Conservative gain.
	Spike regularly caught people's attention with his outspoken column in my newsletter. He successfully campaigned to overturn the no-dogs policy at Havering town hall and made a justifiable effort to oppose the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. His proudest moment was when he greeted the noble Baroness Thatcher during her visit to Romford two days before the general election. Always full of energy and enthusiasm, Spike proved to me that a dog really is a man's best friend. Until the last day of his life, he remained reliable, committed to everything that I did and, above all, steadfastly loyal. Politicians could learn a thing or two from these creatures.
	Before I move to the main focus of my speech, I ask hon. Members to reflect on the significance of dogs in our everyday lives. They are not just household pets; there are guide dogs for the blind and hearing dogs for the deaf. There are schemes that take dogs into hospitals where they bring relief and joy to the sick. Dogs bring happiness and often help to the disabled.
	Dogs perform vital tasks in the police, Customs and mountain rescue services, as sniffers and in search and rescue. Indeed, more than 100 dogs were involved in the operation to find survivors in the aftermath of the tragic events in the United States of America on 11 September 2001.
	Dogs are a great source of companionship to elderly and lonely people. There is no doubt that dogs contribute to society and play a significant role in all our lives, as is well demonstrated by the excellent work of organisations such as PAT Dogs, Dogs for the Disabled and, of course, Guide Dogs for the Blind.
	Sadly, 12 years ago, the House committed an awful injustice to certain breeds of dog following the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act—which, to my regret, was introduced by a Conservative Government. The 1991 Act was a draconian piece of legislation that penalised some breeds just because of a handful of isolated but tragic incidents. It was a classic example of ill thought-out, rushed legislation at its worst. The Act has led to the unnecessary destruction of countless gentle family pets and criminalised many respectable dog owners. Especially before the 1997 amendment, that led to the compulsory death sentence of dogs. The legislation has also cost the British taxpayer millions of pounds. In a written answer to me on 8 May 2002, it was revealed that the total cost to the Metropolitan police, which hold the largest number of dogs under the 1991 Act, was more than £4.5 million. Multiplying that figure across the 451 police forces in the United Kingdom paints an expensive picture. I challenge any right hon. or hon. Member to prove that all those dogs are necessarily dangerous to society. Surely it is the deed, not the breed, that should be punished.
	The Act's provisions fundamentally go against the grain of the British legal tradition. Under section 1 of the Act, it is for the owner of the seized dog to prove to the court that it is not of a banned type—hardly innocent before proven guilty. I am not asking for the handful of dogs that cause problems to go unpunished but as the Kennel Club correctly puts it, the deed should be punished, not the breed.
	I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the work that must be done to promote responsible dog ownership. There are no problem breeds, just a handful of problem owners. The law punishes a dog simply for the way that it looks, rather than cracking down on the criminal and antisocial behaviour of certain irresponsible dog owners. Surely it would be more successful to refocus the law to deal with the irresponsibility that leads to problems—making the offence not the ownership of the dog but the handling of it—and rather than attacking entire breeds, properly to enforce laws such as those that prohibit unleashed dogs in public areas and compulsory muzzling orders.
	As part of the drive to promote responsible dog ownership, dog awareness should be covered in schools. If children are taught from an early age how to respond when around dogs and to look after a dog properly, and are taught what a dog needs to lead a healthy and trouble-free life, when those children become dog owners later and enjoy them as pets in a family situation, they will be able to give their dog the care and attention it deserves.
	I am fortunate in having a large greyhound stadium in my constituency that regularly plays host to many significant events in the greyhound calendar. Most recently, I was pleased to attend, together with colleagues from the all-party parliamentary greyhound group, the 2002 Coral Essex Vase final at Romford dog track. However, a significant problem is attached to greyhound racing, when some owners destroy their dogs when they can no longer run. I find it astonishing that anyone who works with animals could destroy a dog simply because its running days are over. I am advised by the National Greyhound Racing Club that its rules ensure that owners are responsible for the future of their greyhounds at the conclusion of their racing careers. A number of options are available for them to comply with the rules.
	Greyhound racing is enormous fun but those who participate must surely consider the welfare of the dog during and after its racing days. That is why I am pleased to commend the efforts of the Romford retired greyhounds association, which is doing wonderful work in rehousing greyhounds at the end of their racing, and Greyhound Rescue, representatives of which I was delighted to meet at Crufts last year.
	To conclude, I seek some assurances from the Minister tonight: first, that the Government will not seek to introduce legislation without proper consultation with the main dog organisations and charities; secondly, that they will seek to form stronger relationships with those groups, giving support where it is needed; thirdly, that the Minister will consider promoting dog awareness and responsible dog ownership in schools and communities; and, finally, that the Government will seriously review those laws already on the statute book, the limitations of which I have highlighted. I truly believe that a dog is man's best friend, and I urge all hon. Members to join me in working to achieve justice for dogs.

Elliot Morley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on the way in which he has raised this issue. He made a number of important and serious points, and I shall reply in the spirit in which they were made. I can say that as a former dog owner—I owned German shepherds, although it was a long time ago.
	I echo the hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the work of many charities and welfare groups, such as the National Canine Defence League, the Kennel Club, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Blue Cross and a range of dogs homes, not least Jay Gee Animal Sanctuary, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) and from which he obtained his very lovable Labrador, Ben, which I see quite regularly.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned Staffordshire bull terriers, and I happen to know a great deal about them. In fact, I may know more than I care to know about them. He is not the only hon. Member with an affection for such dogs; at least one other has such an affection. He was very willing to pull from his wallet pictures of his dog, although he did not seem to carry a picture of his wife. He was certainly very keen on his Staffordshire bull terrier.
	I understand about the very real loss of a pet. I sincerely express my sympathy with the hon. Gentleman because all of us who have pets, which become part of the family, feel that loss very considerably. Of course, the loss of a dog is no less than that of any other pet, particularly because of the loyalty that they display. I confess that, because of my current lifestyle, it is just not possible to own a dog because I could not give it the attention that it would rightly deserve, so I have become a cat owner because they are a great deal more independent. They are a bit different from dogs: it is often said that dogs have masters, but cats have staff.
	I agree that dogs, like other pets, reduce stress. That is one of their great values. Dogs also fulfil many important roles—for example, working dogs. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to enforcement and responsible ownership, and we take those issues seriously. I was very pleased that he mentioned greyhounds. A great many people are concerned, as he is, about greyhounds when they reach the end of their working lives.
	By coincidence, I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) before we entered the Chamber. He co-owns a greyhound, Sobers Maxine, and not only does he share the hon. Gentleman's views on the need to take care of retired greyhounds, but I understand that he intends to keep that dog as a pet when it reaches the end of its working life. I congratulate him on his responsible ownership.
	There are some doughty campaigners on the issue of retired greyhounds, such as Annette Crosbie, who has also spoken on the subject to the associate parliamentary group for animal welfare on several occasions. I was delighted to hear about the Romford retired greyhound association, and I wish that there were many more organisations of that kind that took their responsibilities seriously.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me to reply on three points, and I shall certainly do so. First, he asked me to give an assurance that the Government would not introduce legislation on dogs or animal welfare without consultation with the various groups and stakeholders. I freely give that commitment. He will be aware that we are consulting on a new animal welfare Bill, which is designed to consolidate the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and associated legislation in a new welfare Bill fit for the 21st century. Not only are we consulting on that but we have been through one round of consultation. We intend to respond, and we propose to produce a draft Bill on which people will be able to comment before we apply for parliamentary time. It is right and proper that we have such consultation with all the various groups, particularly on such fundamental issues as upgrading animal welfare legislation, which probably comes round only about once a century. It is therefore very important that we get the Bill right.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked the Government to give strong support for relationships with other groups. Again, I am happy to give that commitment. I have attended the associate group on several occasions to talk to the various welfare organisations and interested Members from all parties who want to raise issues of animal welfare, including dog ownership.
	The hon. Gentleman asked, too, about promoting dog awareness, which is a serious issue that we need to support through local authorities and dog warden schemes. Many councils have a very good record on this, in relation not only to dog enforcement but to promoting responsible dog ownership. We are keen to support that serious issue.
	The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I understand exactly his points, but even though that legislation was introduced under a Conservative Government, it was designed to address a serious problem. The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 was a great improvement, and many of us thought that it would have been sensible to include that commonsense amendment, which gave the courts discretion to decide whether an animal fell within the meaning of the Act, from the very beginning. Instead, the strict and rigorous interpretation of the Act, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, gave courts no discretion and caused a great deal of problems.
	Under section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Secretary of State has the power to designate certain types of dog identified as primarily bred for fighting. Currently, four species of dogs are so designated: the pit bull terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Braziliero. Such dogs are banned in this country unless the owners have a valid certificate of exemption, which can be issued only at the direction of a court of law.
	The main problem was the pit bull terrier, which became notorious not only for illegal dog fighting but for a number of well-documented attacks on individuals. It is a very broad, muscular, smooth-haired dog noted for its strength and determination: a very dangerous cocktail of characteristics and features.
	There are concerns that organised dog fighting is still taking place. Unfortunately, pit bull types can go under other names: for example, American Staffordshire terriers, Irish Staffordshire terriers and American bull dogs. They may not be called pit bull terriers, but they are pit bull types and prohibited under the 1991 Act. That is an abuse, and it is unfortunate that people try to present and sell such dogs as some form of Staffordshire bull terrier, thereby encouraging illegal activities. That does no good to the reputation of the Staffordshire bull terrier breed, which is completely undeserved. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, by the end of April, my Department will have published a leaflet to assist enforcement agencies, as well as those whose work may bring them into contact with dogs, with guidelines on identification to help them to deal with some of the problems that he has rightly outlined.
	I make no apology for trying to protect the public and to prevent the appalling act of organised dog fighting in which dogs are encouraged to inflict as much injury on each other as possible. Organised dog fighting is an international problem and, sadly, websites advertise such dogs for sale with proud boasts about their "gameness", which is code for, and a clear reference to, their fighting ability. Because the dogs are bred for fighting, they are also a risk to people.
	Although I deal with the dangerous dogs legislation, I also deal with the control of dogs. I receive many representations from hon. Members who are concerned about attacks on their constituents from the dogs held by irresponsible owners and about the damage that such dogs can do. We cannot be complacent. There are unscrupulous people who want to abuse the law and descriptions of breed, and who keep dogs that are dangerous to individuals. Such dogs are bred for the illegal and indefensible activity of organised dog fighting.
	One proposal that we are considering for the proposed new animal welfare Bill is to raise the penalties for those involved in organised animal fights as well as to give the police greater powers to deal with those unpleasant events. As long as there is a threat that the number of dogs specifically bred for fighting could be on the increase and that members of the public could be placed in danger, there is not a credible argument for removing those dogs from section 1 of the 1991 Act. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman was arguing for that, as he was expressing worries about the confusion between breeds.
	The 1991 Act does not just prohibit the possession of certain types of dogs. Under section 3, it is an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place or in a place where it has no right to be. Again, we should not apologise for that. It is a necessary piece of public protection legislation. Although I accept that many dog attacks are caused by a lack of control, a lack of care and irresponsible owners, we must recognise that some people will breed dogs that can inflict terrible damage on people, particularly children, and that are linked with the illegal dog-fighting rings. For all those reasons, I believe that the legislation has a role to play. It has been applied as carefully as the courts can apply it, but there will always be difficult borderline cases in which it is necessary to identify a dog under the breed-specific provisions in the law. Overall, however, the legislation is justified.
	The hon. Gentleman has made a very good case and a number of fair points, and I have listened carefully to him on behalf of the Government. In the animal welfare Bill, we intend to address some of the abuses and the penalties. If there are specific problems about the workings of the 1991 Act, I should be only too pleased to consider them on their individual merits.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.